The Secretary of State was asked—

Simon Burns: The Minister will remember that at the last Health questions, he told me that he did not expect trusts to make a profit out of car parking to pay off deficits. What is he going to do with the letter from the chief executive of Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust that I sent him a month ago, which states that the trust increased car park charges from 1 February 2007 for staff at Broomfield hospital from £40 a year to £200 a year as part of the turnaround scheme to reduce the deficit? That seems directly contrary to what the Minister said last month that trusts should do.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman did raise that with me, so I have looked into it. The increase in 2007 for staff was from 77p a week to £3.85 a week. At the moment, the trust apparently charges staff half the annual cost of operating the space. In other words, I am told that the trust subsidises those car parking spaces.
	Today the shadow Chancellor has said how tough he wants to be on climate change and how he wants to discourage people from unnecessarily using vehicles and so on. Now, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) wants to ensure that instead of money being put into patient care, it is put into greater subsidies for car parking-

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend will know that just this year we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the NHS stop smoking services, which have saved more than 70,000 lives. We know that people are four times as likely to quit with support as without it. The important point that he makes is that two thirds of smokers start before they are 18, and that is why smoke-free legislation and other measures in recent health legislation will contribute to reducing the numbers of new recruits to the tobacco industry.

Andy Burnham: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is utterly disgraceful. There were claims made last week that benefits would be taken away from elderly and disabled people and that some could lose "up to £60" a week. I do not know how the shadow Health Secretary can justify those claims when he knows them to be untrue. We have said clearly that in any new system people would be offered an equivalent level of support. The whole aim of this reform is to provide more support to vulnerable people, not less. It is because the Conservatives have such a threadbare response to these serious issues that they resort to scaremongering and frankly despicable tactics.

Andy Burnham: I will get up and say what I have just said-that every person will get an equivalent level of support, and I have made that clear. The hon. Gentleman went to a press conference last week at which he suggested that money would be taken from those people. That destabilises, upsets and causes anxiety in some of the most vulnerable people in society, and for whose purposes? It is for the purposes of the Conservative party's election campaign. I find it beneath contempt, and we would do those people more service by having a proper debate on the issues.

Phil Hope: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that Cinderella has come to the ball. We have increased investment in mental health services by 50 per cent.-£2 billion-since 2001. We have more consultant psychiatrists, more clinical psychologists and more mental health nurses. That investment in the extra services means that individuals will be able to access the mental health services that they need, not least the psychological therapies that we are rolling out across the country, investment in which will rise to a total of £173 million by 2010-11.

Stephen O'Brien: Given that at the last count, only two thirds of junior doctors were compliant with the European working time directive and 77 trusts have had to request a derogation from the directive, and in light of the fact that the Secretary of State himself does not have to comply with the directive that his own party has forced on our doctors, what action are the Minister and the Secretary of State taking to bring forward the long-delayed review of junior doctors' training to ensure that doctors' skills and training-and, ultimately, patient care-do not suffer as a result of the Government's failure to negotiate an opt-out?

Jane Kennedy: Will my right hon. Friend take a personal interest in the two capital building projects, part of the £1.2 billion committed to Liverpool hospitals by the Government, the Liverpool university hospital and the Royal Liverpool children's hospital, both of which are critical to the future delivery of hospital services to Liverpool?

Mike O'Brien: The NHS is constantly looking to ensure that we keep up to date with the way in which populations change in particular areas. PCTs must ensure that that data goes to the Department so that the appropriate decisions on finances can be made.

Andrew Pelling: A Bethlem Royal hospital in-patient who had previously been convicted of murder absconded while on a shopping trip to West Wickham. As we would expect of one of the best trusts in the country, Bethlem reacted very professionally in giving reassurance to the public about its procedures for such circumstances, but would it be worth while to see whether there are sufficient resources to support such activities for in-patients outside hospital?

Phil Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this case to my attention. Whether a patient who has been detained under the Mental Health Acts can leave a hospital or unit under escort on a visit is always a clinical decision. The hon. Gentleman described the mental health trust involved in this case as one of the best in the country, and it is the responsibility of individual trusts to ensure that patients in their care do not abscond from secure services. The hon. Gentleman referred to resources. As I said earlier, investment in mental health services has increased for nine consecutive years, and by some 50 per cent. or £2 billion in real terms. I understand that the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust will be carefully reviewing the incident the hon. Gentleman raised and that it will change policies and procedures for escorting patients if that is found to be necessary.

Brian Iddon: A few days ago, work began on Bolton One, which is a £30 million project delivering a new swimming pool, a walk-in health centre and teaching facilities for the university of Bolton. Will the Minister congratulate that university, Bolton council and Bolton primary care trust on this innovate new partnership?

Ann Winterton: What advice can the Minister give to a constituent whose eight-year-old son is suspected of having Asperger's syndrome and who is having to wait three years before a test might confirm that? He could pay £1,000 for a test to be carried out privately, but that would not necessarily be accepted by the local education authority. Is this not a disgrace?

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend has touched on part of the problem, which is that some people are in denial. However, the majority of the world recognises that the problem has an impact for everybody. What can he do to ensure that there is international collaboration on good, positive schemes, such as carbon capture and the other initiatives that are emerging? Does he agree that we must ensure that developing countries such as China, Brazil and India also get that technology?

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not notice the incentive that we have unveiled for electric cars, precisely to encourage electric cars in this country, as well as the charging points that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government discussed last week.
	That takes me to the issue of energy, and I repeat that we face big challenges in that area. No one should pretend the scale of the challenge is not huge. Our plans will mean that approximately 10,000 wind turbines will be built between now and 2020, as part of the strategy for achieving 30 per cent. renewable electricity by 2020. It means having nuclear power stations, which is why we made national policy statements on that two weeks ago. That requires hard decisions, and we should be honest about that. It requires giving people a voice-that is important in the new planning process-but it also means, in my view, facing down those who would say no to wind, or to nuclear, or to clean coal. The scale of the challenge that we face is enormous, and it requires a culture change, as our countryside is going to change, because we need a low-carbon energy infrastructure. It also means driving forward on clean coal and saying no to those who oppose it.
	One clean-coal power station in the UK has already received a provisional allocation of €160 million in funding. In the new year, we will announce how we will spend the £90 million to be allocated for engineering and design as part the next stage of our carbon capture and storage competition. The crucial thing about the Energy Bill is that it legislates for a clean-coal levy to provide funding for up to four demonstration projects. That will provide funding of up to £9.5 billion over the coming two decades-the largest single investment in CCS of any country in the world, including the United States.

Edward Miliband: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I want to make progress.
	We are acting in the Bill and elsewhere to make the transition as fair as it can be. We are acting to help people reduce the energy that they use, and in the past year 1.5 million households received support to improve their insulation. We are acting to help people meet the higher energy costs of winter through the winter fuel payment, and, as a result of the action that has been taken, in the past year we have eliminated the differential between pre-payment and standard credit customers. In 2008, the average dual-fuel pre-payment customer paid £41 more than the average standard credit dual-fuel customer; now they pay £4 less. But we know that we need to do more, and that is what the Energy Bill tries to do through a series of changes.

Edward Miliband: I am reassured by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), that the regulations will be out this week, so that is a clear sign of delivery by the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

David Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way for a second time. Social tariffs drive down electricity bills, but so does energy efficiency. Will he comment on the plans that have been floated to make available to all 25 million households in Britain energy efficiency loans of £6,500? Is he aware that the cost would be about £160 billion, a sum not unadjacent to 10 per cent. of GDP? Is that a cost-effective way of using taxpayers' money?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) have become pen pals on that issue, but I have to say that her letters have been better than his. I shall turn to that subject in a moment.
	My message is very clear: the regulator must step in proactively where competition is not sufficient to protect the interests of consumers. Let me also make it clear that the new system of quarterly reporting on wholesale and retail prices that we introduced is designed to bring transparency and fairness for consumers. We look forward to the next quarterly report, because when there is a case for price reductions they need to be passed on to consumers. Taken together, the measures that we have announced in the Queen's Speech confront the hard choices that we have to make in relation to climate change: hard choices about our energy infrastructure, about energy bills, and about protection for vulnerable consumers.
	I search in this debate for that elusive thing, all-party consensus, but on domestic policy I am not optimistic. It has to be said that the Conservatives are outstanding at green image-making. Let us be honest, the image that we all remember-perhaps their finest moment; I think it was the brainchild of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)-is the huskies.  [ Interruption. ] There was not a car driving behind the huskies-that was in the case of the bicycle. The test for the Opposition in this debate on the Gracious Address is whether they can match the huskies with clear and concrete policy making. So far, they have not done very well, but the Queen's Speech represents a chance for them to support us in five particular areas.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle refers to the green investment bank. That policy was announced today. The green investment bank is the first bank in world history to be announced with no money attached to it-it will not be much of a bank, in my view.
	This is an opportunity for the Conservative party to join the all-party consensus in this debate. There are five questions that I hope that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells will be able to answer-the five tests, one might call them. The Conservatives need to face up to the hard choices that are necessary. First, I say that the CCS levy is necessary: does he agree? I will be interested to hear his reply. Secondly, they need to face up to the hard choices necessary on low-carbon infrastructure in general. We say that it is right to go ahead with the Infrastructure Planning Commission, but the local government spokesman for the Conservatives says that they would abolish the IPC. Business says that it is very worried about that plan because it would set back the process of building our low-carbon infrastructure.
	Thirdly, we say that it is wrong that 60 per cent. of wind turbine applications are turned down by Conservative councils, because that will not get us the low-carbon energy infrastructure that we need.  [ Interruption. ] Just to be clear about this, 60 per cent. of such applications made to Conservative councils are turned down. That is not surprising, given that the shadow Business Secretary says:
	"My view is that those few wild and open spaces that we have left in Britain should not be used for wind turbines".
	There would be no onshore wind at all under the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells will have to tell us whether he agrees with me that we need onshore wind to contribute towards a renewable energy target of 15 per cent. or agrees with his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Business Secretary.
	Fourthly, there is the issue of costs, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). The Conservatives cannot simply keep going round promising things that they do not have a clue how they are going to pay for. The latest example is the promise of £6,500 for every household, which would cost £150 billion or more, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear. They have absolutely no idea how they are going to pay for that policy, and I will be interested to hear what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells has to say about it.
	Finally, there is the international dimension of climate change. That is not about the huskies-it is about Europe. What are the Conservatives doing in Europe? They are hanging around with climate change deniers in their new grouping. What did Roger Helmer, the Conservative MEP, choose to do this week, of all weeks? He organised a conference of climate change deniers. What kind of signal does that send? I think it sends a ridiculous signal, and I will be interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. The truth is that on the CCS levy, on energy infrastructure, on costing their policies, and on Europe, the Conservatives are not willing to face up to the hard choices necessary to make the green energy revolution happen.
	By contrast, we are willing to face up to the hard choices. We have a clear plan with clear policy. It is guided by the science, it makes the case for action economically as well as environmentally, and it is about taking the carbon out of our economy. The Queen's Speech makes an essential contribution to that task and to combating dangerous climate change, adapting to it and ensuring that the low-carbon transition is fair. I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right and it is completely inadequate. The Energy Bill was an opportunity to take urgent action on this point. Other countries protect themselves against the possibility of interrupted gas supplies, and nothing in the Bill would address that problem.

Nia Griffith: How did the Conservatives' policies in the 1980s help to secure energy supplies-they wrecked the coal industry-and will he tell us about the power stations that his party constructed in the 1980s and 1990s that would have prevented the crisis that we are now facing?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, the Government have failed to take the right decisions on all of these different technologies. They have got us into this position because they have failed, over a 12-year period, to take the necessary decisions for our national energy security. That should not be a surprise, because it is the same approach as they took on the economy, where they failed to address the problems that were evidently mounting, instead hoping to be able to look the other way and ignore them.

Linda Gilroy: Could the hon. Gentleman therefore explain why his party voted against the financial stimulus, which included a £1.4 billion package for sustainable investment, including in the low-carbon economy in my region?

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has just said something significant. He said that we cannot afford the £400 million to which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) referred, which is investment in green technology. That is what he said.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. When we were designing our green deal, we were determined that the limit of £6,500 should be high enough to ensure not only that it covered the basic cavity walls and loft insulation available for modern houses, but that houses that are harder to treat-I hesitate to say "hard to treat", because it is important to get the message out that they can be treated-can be treated in such a way that actually saves money. We need to unlock the savings that people can make, and use them to release to people up front the cost of making those investments.
	It is characteristic of the Government to assume that any proposal that they hear about must involve the expenditure of vast amounts of public funds. That is what they assume all the time- [ Interruption. ] I will enlighten the Secretary of State. When people save money on their energy bills through being more energy efficient, that is costing them less than it otherwise would. That stream of savings continues into the future. Our discussions with the banks have elicited a certain enthusiasm for the proposal that, by taking those savings and capitalising on them, people can get the money up front that is needed to make those investments.
	That proposal would benefit everyone in the economy. From day one, it would reduce energy consumption and bills, even after repayment, for the people who engage in such improvements. It would reduce our CO2 emissions and provide work for energy efficiency installers at a time when the construction industry is suffering. It would also provide apprenticeships. It would provide a stimulus to the economy that would not have the effect that the Government's stimulus is having-namely, to saddle future generations with debts without the means of repaying them. There could not be a better designed policy for the times, and it is a source of sadness to me and others outside the House that the Secretary of State has not had the imagination to put such a proposal into the Queen's Speech.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have published our own home energy efficiency plan for 700 million households to be insulated by 2020 and we have said that we will pilot it in the low-carbon transition plan, which we will be announcing shortly. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's position is that he says that we can give £6,500 to everybody on day one. I do not know how he will pay for every household to have that. I asked him in my speech to clarify-perhaps he can advise us now-how he will pay for that £6,500 on day one.

Greg Clark: I cannot understand why the Secretary of State does not listen if not to me, then to his own speeches. Perhaps he has been too long in the Treasury. Let me remind him of what he said to the Environmental Audit Committee, and I shall comment on it after I have read it:
	"The truth about energy efficiency is that it pays to do it, but the problem is the upfront costs. And the task is to spread those costs over time, not over the time that someone lives in a house, because that might be eight or nine years and that's probably not enough time, to spread it over a longer period so the repayment, if you like, is connected to the house not the person and to find ways"-
	 [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should listen to this, as I am quoting his own words back to him and this is a particularly important point:
	"in which I think the private sector and others, local councils maybe... can come in and provide that upfront finance".
	That is what the Secretary of State said on 27 October to the Environmental Audit Committee, so I suggest that he listens to the evidence that he gives to Committees and puts it in the Bills that he brings before the House.

Greg Clark: I want to make some progress. Many hon. Members want to speak and I have already taken several interventions. If I have time, I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
	It is not surprising that we have been in this mess over such a long period when over the past 12 years of this Government we have had 15 different Energy Ministers. If Ministers are moved every nine months, it is not surprising that they cannot get their heads around this relatively technical subject and do not get enough time to act. It is not as though the creation of the new Department has solved all these problems, although it is a step in the right direction. I discovered the other day that a shadow Department of Energy and Climate Change, if we can believe it, has been set up in Lord Mandelson's empire. Not only is there a shadow Department in the Opposition, but there is a shadow Department-shadowing everything that the Secretary of State does and presumably picking holes in it-in the Government. Not only that: I have discovered that 15 civil servants are employed to do that work. The problem has not been solved; the Government are eating themselves. We are in such a state of tailspin that the Government are setting up Departments to shadow themselves, which is a pretty poor state of affairs.
	We are where we are and this opportunity to achieve a degree of cross-party consensus on some of the necessary measures has arisen; in many cases, we agree on what needs to be done, but a lack of urgency has prevailed during the past 12 years and, sadly, it prevails to this day.

John Battle: I want to be absolutely clear about what the hon. Gentleman is offering the people. If he is offering £6,500 to every family, to be paid for by the energy companies and backed up by either the Government or local authorities, how much does he expect the public coffers to put forward? I understand that he is offering it immediately to every family in Britain.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has done it, but he has not brought it to this House to be ratified. We would do that so there is proof against judicial review.
	We need to have diversity. Churchill said that diversity and diversity alone guaranteed energy security. We should abide by that principle. We will mandate the national grid to extend its network offshore as well as onshore, so that we can better harness the power of the waves, tides and offshore wind. We need to be able to get the benefits to consumers onshore and we need that offshore grid.
	We will build marine energy parks-perhaps there might be one in Cumbria-to provide the grid connections and the planning requirements necessary to allow entrepreneurs to promote new energy projects, making use of our fantastic coastal resources. We will provide those parks so that we can have that head start. Rather than hectoring communities that host wind farms, telling them that they are somehow immoral if they entertain any objection at all, we will engage them in dialogue and allow them to share in the benefits of renewable energy. We would allow every community that hosts a wind farm to keep six years' worth of business rates that arise from that investment. Why is that not in the Queen's Speech? It will be in the Queen's Speech if we are elected to government next year.
	We will upgrade our 50-year-old national grid to be a smart grid so that it can better balance the supply of electricity, especially from renewables, and the demands. We will speed up the deployment of smart meters. For some reason the Government have been bludgeoned into thinking that smart meters cannot be introduced until the end of 2020, 11 years away. Across the world now, communities are benefiting from the interactivity and the cost savings that come from smart meters. We need to get on with that. Why do not we have this urgent action?
	We need charging points for electric vehicles all around the country. We need the kind of consumer revolution that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron)-he has momentarily left his place-talked about. We need information on bills that says not just how much the consumer has consumed-often an estimate at the moment-but how one could go to the cheapest possible tariff, with the number and the link to be able to do that immediately.
	We need transparency on wholesale prices. When the wholesale prices of gas are falling, consumers rightly expect that their bills will fall, too. I am not at all satisfied that the present system is clear enough as to whether the right reductions in domestic fuel bills are happening at the right pace. That needs to be investigated and acted on immediately.
	We will give every household in the country a green deal that would allow them to have the energy efficiency improvements that would cut our CO2 emissions, save them money and get people back to work in this country. Immediate action to keep the lights on, to create jobs, to make the UK the industrial leader that it should be in all these technologies and to safeguard our planet-that is what is needed from a Queen's Speech from a Government of this country. The only power cut that we want is an end to the power of this Government and the election of a Government who take these matters seriously. Britain will be better for it.

John Prescott: I am sure that studies come up with such results, but I do not think that the people who disagree with the science are in the majority; they are a very small minority. There were people who still believed that the earth was flat, but the rest of us did not generally agree with them. At Kyoto, one or two research bodies were found who came up and said that the science is now doubted. The overwhelming opinion now in almost every country is that the science is accurate, however. That is not the same situation as at Kyoto.
	The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) quoted an article in  The Guardian. I read the article, and it also made a statement about not detracting from the central argument about the accuracy of the science. Why did he not quote that? Why did he quote only the bits about the university in question, and so forth?  [Interruption.] Well, it would be very good if he actually gave us a proper and objective opinion, instead of just selectively quoting from the article, as he did.
	I shall now return my attention to Lord Lawson. In an article in  The Times, he casts doubt on the science, but he also says that he has no idea whether the science is true. He is quite sceptical about it; he produced a book a few years ago making it clear he is sceptical about it. I am bound to say, however, that the fact that he announces this now has the same ring as what happened at Kyoto. Just before people come to the negotiations, they start throwing in all the doubt about the science.
	Apparently, Lord Lawson is setting up a
	"high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation".
	Obviously that is designed to feed into the current atmosphere that the science is faulty. It is true, as he suggests, that we are making judgments on the science-all Governments are. He desires "open and reasoned debate" and was very upset about the word "trick" in the e-mail from the university-we would all be concerned about that if the imputation is right, but an inquiry is going on into that. I should say to him that this approach is exactly what we found at Kyoto: people come up with some scientific body that they say has done the research and suggested that the science is not acceptable.
	I just wondered who is financing this body that Lord Lawson is setting up. We tend to find that such bodies are funded by the oil and coal industry and people like that. So I had a look and found that the Central Europe Trust Ltd is the body that he has set up and his clients are Elf, Total, Shell, BP, Amoco, Texaco-that is a lot of oil companies. From what I can see of it, it is not so much a think-tank as a petrol tank.
	We must take that point into account, because Lord Lawson used to say a great deal about money from the trade unions influencing the position of the Labour party and about the people paying the piper calling the tune. It is fair to say that as this operation is being financed by the oil companies, we should perhaps look a little suspiciously at it. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden may have a future in this, because he knows the oil companies involved. There seems to be a correlation whereby if someone works for oil companies, they happen to be against the science. Saying that is perhaps a bit naughty, but people get suspicious about the conclusions that are being reached.
	The point I wish to make is that the science is right, and we must act on it. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change made it clear in his speech what he has to do about that. The important thing is to ensure that there is momentum. To be fair, I should say that the Opposition spokesman mentioned the kind of changes that are under way. The view has always been that there is not going to be any change in Copenhagen, that things will break down and the issue causing the breakdown tends to be emissions.
	Let us consider what is happening, even in the countries that have been mentioned. South Korea, Japan-it promised things at Kyoto and did not deliver on them, but there is a different party in power there now and its Tories have gone-Brazil, Russia and Australia have all decided that they are going to do something about cutting emissions. That is at the heart of this argument.
	I was in China last week having discussions with Premier Wen and appealing to him to ensure that the Chinese leadership go to Copenhagen. It was clear from the communiqué that both America and China are considering what further offers they can make on emissions. Of course America faces a difficulty, because it has a constitutional requirement to put things before Congress, but it is nevertheless showing that it might make some judgments about that. China and America are the major emitters, and if they can come to some agreement about emissions, that would represent a major change in the argument.
	While I was in China addressing a group and a conference-this was paid by me; nobody else pays the money when I go to these countries-people were discussing how they might now move on this. Where do the difficulties lie? The difficulties are whether we recognise the common but differentiated responsibilities and that the bigger burden should fall on the developed countries-clearly it should-whether we believe there should be an audit if a policy is carried out and whether there will be a timetable on such an audit. Those are very real questions and the Chinese are now discussing how we can achieve progress on them. To that extent, we are getting considerably more movement than we could have expected normally.

John Prescott: That is an interesting point because each industrial country, as it begins to grow, has to get its resources. Every European country-Britain, France and Germany-went through its industrial development but we sent in troops and got the resources by conquest. It was called colonialism. The Chinese are going in and negotiating contracts. I happen to think that that sounds a more harmonious way to do it than the murder that we were involved in when we raped these countries of their resources. We should take a balanced view and not forget our own history, and we should not lecture them too much.
	We do not have sufficient resources for the massive amount of growth that will take place in this world. Inequality between the north and the south-it is the rich countries that did the pollution-is growing and Copenhagen must recognise social injustice. Two thirds of the world are poor and do not have the growth that we have, so any Copenhagen agreement had better find a way of introducing better social equity. That is what we have been doing in the Council of Europe, where I am the rapporteur, and I shall be at Copenhagen.
	It is important that we get greater transparency. In my last speech, I said that we should be measuring the problem by gigatonnes instead of by emissions. Measuring emissions is fancy dancing by Europe, basically-people do not know what they are doing, but it looks as if they are doing something. The real point is whether the southern world will get a better chance of growth. When we measure by gigatonnes, we find that the figure per head in America is 20 gigatonnes, in Africa it is 1 gigatonne and in Europe it is 12 gigatonnes. If we begin to set a good example and consider how we can get fairness and equity into the system, that is how we will achieve results in Copenhagen. We have to be very clear about trying to create social justice.
	I believe that we are on the way to some agreement. It will not be a matter of the dotting the i's and crossing the t's, but of finding a political framework that we can offer. There must be a timetable to it, and Mr. de Boer of the UN made that absolutely clear. He said that the political agreement at Copenhagen has to set out essential principles: first, it must focus on what is realistic and concentrate on the politics of achieving that; and it should get climate change and emissions targets that countries should agree with. I think that is crucial.
	There is another factor to consider if we are to get the framework right, which I believe that we can do-we are moving in that direction. On this point, the Government are showing the leadership that they have always shown and as they showed on achieving the Kyoto targets. Leaders must go to Copenhagen. When our Prime Minister said that he was going, he gave a lead. We now have 60 countries going. I appealed to Premier Wen only last week that China must be represented. We decided at the Council of Europe meeting in Paris this week that we will write to India, China and America. The leaders of those three countries must go to Copenhagen, because at the end of the day, as was the case with Kyoto, it is the leaders who decide. It will be a political fix-whether we like it or not. Their involvement is useful because nobody wants to be accused of breaking the agreement. We need to shove them all in the same room and tell them, "If you really mean it about change, if you are talking about our children and their children, and if you are going to make effective change, you can sit in that damn room and come to an agreement. We won't let you out before that." That happened at Kyoto. Many things are being repeated from Kyoto, but we have a moral obligation to achieve an agreement.
	Let me make one point that we can learn from. In the 19th century, we spent all our time in mass production. In the 20th century, that became mass consumption. We must learn to have mass sustainability in this century. That is the only key. The decisions are difficult; we must carry the great burden and we should recognise the need for social justice. Countries want to lift their people out of poverty, like we have done, and we should play our part in producing the low-carbon economy to achieve that. Copenhagen will be judged on the social justice embodied in it, and within a financial framework. I am looking forward to that debate, but I hope that I will have the key to the door so that I do not let the buggers out until they have done a deal.

Simon Hughes: It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was characteristically ebullient and forceful. He has shown fantastic commitment to this issue and I pay tribute to him. Copenhagen needs people like him. I had not heard that the Council of Europe had taken the view that it should specifically request the leaders of China and India to go there. I share absolutely the view that if the leaders of the most powerful nations on the planet are in the same place, the pressure will be on them to ensure that they deliver. All sorts of good things should flow from that, and I shall come back to that point in a second.
	I join the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) in recognising the suffering of the people of Cumbria in recent days. I pay tribute to PC Barker and to the police service and public services there. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has been hugely involved, as we would expect from a county Member of Parliament. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been to see the situation for himself. The whole country will want those people to be supported. The lesson learned from Hull, Gloucestershire and other places affected by flooding is that this will be a long haul. The rest of us must ensure that, especially at this time of year, we give every support at a local and national level to the people in those communities who have to rebuild their lives.
	This debate is about two substantive issues. The first is what we can achieve at Copenhagen, a subject that was rightly flagged up in the Queen's Speech as being of huge significance. The second is the legislative opportunity represented by the one Bill that the Government have put on the table-although I agree with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells that it is a mouse of a Bill when we could have done with a much more significant mountain of a Bill.
	I begin with Copenhagen. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned Yvo de Boer, the lead UN climate change facilitator, and from my reading I know that he and all the people who have followed the negotiations are very clear about two things. The first is that the EU is one of the keyholders in this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the comments that Mr. de Boer made yesterday in which he said:
	"The EU must be clearer now about what it has in its final hand and put that final hand on the table."
	Mr. de Boer spoke about the targets and about the money for mitigation and adaptation. The EU has said that, if there is a deal, there will be a commitment to a reduction in emissions of 30 per cent. from 1990 levels across the EU, but I think that we should say that now. I urge the Secretary of State to speak for the UK, to make it clear that this is our view and to try and get the EU to set the same target. If we could go into the talks with that as our commitment across the EU-and not something that is conditional, possible or dependent on an eventual deal-that would be really helpful.
	By definition, the UK has to have a higher commitment to make up for other countries not doing as well. The Secretary of State knows that we on these Benches believe that, if we are really determined, a 40 per cent. cut from 1990 levels is achievable. Yes, that will be tough and difficult but, because we are one of the countries that have been the greatest contributors, it is our obligation.
	The other issue on which Mr. de Boer was very clear was the amount of money that rich countries must put in to help the poor ones. For example, I have visited Bangladesh in the past and I appreciate the difficulties that it faces. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change knows that I respect him, but I was disappointed that his remarks contained not one word about finance. I appreciate that legislation is not finance, but we are talking about Copenhagen and no mention has been made today of how any deal on adaptation and mitigation that might be reached there will be financed. I want to be tough on the right hon. Gentleman about financing and its source, so that we get some answers.
	We got no answers when we last debated these matters on 5 November, when Ministers repeated what the Prime Minister had said about the need for a universal pot worth €100 billion. In that regard, Mr. de Boer said that rich countries need to declare clear emission targets, and must also commit "very large" sums to the global south for mitigation and adaptation efforts. These sums must be "stable and predictable" so that the third world can move ahead
	"without having to constantly re-negotiate the burden sharing every year."
	He reckoned that that amounted initially to at least $10 billion a year in immediate financing for the period of 2010-12, but that the global south ultimately would need around $200 billion to mitigate carbon emissions and another $100 billion for adapting to the effects of climate change. Mr. de Boer added that the north must also list what each country will provide and how funds will be raised.
	We have not yet heard a word about how the funds will be raised. I believe that the easiest way would be to apply a levy or charge on bunker fuels used by the airline and shipping and industries. They have remained relatively untaxed globally but we know them to be a key cause of the trouble. There may be other sources of funds; it is not for me to say that my suggestions are the only show in town. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs winds up the debate, he will indicate that the Government's thinking has moved on, and that the Treasury are moving. Bluntly, the issue needs Treasury sign-up, but not just sign-up from the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Unless the Treasury is willing to write the cheques on behalf of UK plc, no cheques will be written.
	Mr. de Boer made a point about the time frame; I do not think that there is a difference between the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and me on the issue. I have often said from the Liberal Democrat Benches that I did not think that there would be a final deal in December. We should not be frightened by that, but there should not be a deferral indefinitely. Mr. de Boer was very tough:
	"As for a timeframe, he felt that a strong agreement was still achievable in Copenhagen, even if not a legally-binding one."
	I think that we share that view. Mr. de Boer
	"felt this was acceptable so long as the world's nations only took another two months to 'turn that into treaty language.'
	The EU has said this could take up to another year."
	There is talk of Mexico in that regard.
	There are colleagues who have been in British politics for as long as I have. The politics of the issue is that if there is momentum now, we have to see the matter through to a conclusion before long. I think that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change understands that the politics in the United States, the election cycle and other factors mean that we might lose the momentum. I am clear that the Government will serve Britain well if Ministers make it clear in Copenhagen that if we get the outline deal agreed in December, there should be a resumption early in the new year, so that we can get that deal into a legally binding agreement.
	Of course, the United States has to come in on the issue-it has indicated that it might-and so must China, India, Brazil, Russia and Japan, all of which are now being helpful and are giving signs of movement. They have to be part of the process from the beginning. That is not what happened with Kyoto, to which they were not all signed up from the beginning.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. His point applies particularly to young people, but huge numbers of people in this country will be interested. My postbag, like that of other hon. Members, shows that there is huge interest in the issue. Climate change is important here, for reasons that people in Cumbria may think are obvious, but it is far more important for countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives. There are other places for which it is a life or death issue, too, so momentum is vital.
	We wish Ministers well, but we hope that we will hear higher targets announced before Copenhagen, as an indicator from the UK. The UK could then lead; that would be to the credit of the Government. It would unite us across Parliament and politics if the Government were bolder. The Treasury has to come along, too, but the obligation to ensure that that happens rests with Ministers.
	The Energy Bill effectively does two things. First, it provides for the authorisation of the development of carbon capture and storage. I shall not speak at length about that. That is, inevitably, the way that we must go. We will need coal, but it has to be clean coal. However, we need to move far more quickly. One of my frustrations is that so many of the issues have been on the agenda for as long as I have been in this place-a quarter of a century. The issues are not new, and the Government are really slow to give them any urgency.
	In some ways, the second issue dealt with in the Bill is the more important issue-the one that people in the country are concerned about. It is the question of whether there will be fair fuel prices in this country, something that we have not had in our lifetime. As for the call for social justice across the world that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made, there is still a long way to go in this country, for his constituents, mine and others. The poor and people who use less fuel still have to pay relatively more.
	I want to give Ministers some direct questions to answer when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs winds up. I have looked carefully at the Bill, and understand that it will provide a statutory basis for subsidy for poorer households, once the voluntary deal finishes in a year's time. I also understand that it will change the wording of the obligations on the regulator for gas and electricity supplies. It is not clear to me whether that will guarantee that, in future, every utility company has to have a tariff that does not discriminate at all on the basis of method of payment, and whether it will guarantee that poorer households and low users will always pay at a lower rate than the people who consume more. That is the iniquity. As Ministers know, the unit cost for the low user is higher than the unit cost thereafter. All sorts of fiddles, to put it bluntly, mean that no one can work out the system, because there are 4,000 different tariffs. I should be grateful to know whether Ministers are happy to accept amendments to the Bill that will make that absolutely clear in the measure itself-not in regulations that may, or may not, deliver-so that we can ensure that those things happen.

Mark Oaten: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that oil and liquefied petroleum gas should be covered by those measures, because many people in rural communities face severe oil bills? A lot of rural poverty arises from the fact that individuals cannot get mainstream gas or electricity.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend and many other colleagues have consistently made that point to Government. Not only is the situation unfair for people who are not on the gas supply or whatever but there are other iniquities which mean that they have to buy a tank, pay extra charges and so on. It is absolutely right that provisions to deal with that should be included in the Bill.
	There was a blinding omission from the Queen's Speech and the proposed legislation, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) is in the Chamber, and he spoke about this the other day. In 1983, the Social Democratic party was created, and it fought the election in alliance with the Liberals. I fought that election, and one of our commitments was for warm homes for everyone throughout the country. It was obvious then that most British homes were badly insulated, and that was bad for the poor, because they were paying a lot of money, which was literally going out of the window and the roof. As a result, their bills increased, their homes were not heated properly, and harm was done to the planet. Twenty-five years later, we have barely made progress. According to the latest figures, only one in 100 homes is energy efficient.
	The Government could have announced a serious programme in the Queen's Speech to make every home a warm home, instead of introducing piecemeal schemes: a bit here and a bit more there; a top up for this scheme; a bit of the community energy saving programme, a bit of the carbon emissions reduction target, a bit of Warm Front. There is no reason why the UK should not have a programme, driven by Government and managed locally by local government, street by street, village by village and community by community. That is what we need, but the question of financing then arises. With respect, hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells ducked that question, because the money must be made available up front. If the work is going to be done, even if it is done by loan, apart from work for the very poorest, the loan has to come from somewhere. He made it clear that not a single penny would come from the Government, and he appeared to imply that there would not even be any Government underwriting or support. I do not think that that is possible, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have said so. We believe that such a scheme has to be underwritten by someone, and we believe that it should be the Government, so that people can take out a loan and pay it back.
	I understand the economics of the system: if someone invests in loft or cavity wall insulation, their bills will go down and they can afford the repayment or top-up, but their bills will still be less than they were before. However, we cannot pretend that this is a cost-free exercise. At £6,500 a time, the total cost would be more than £100 billion. At a more realistic £11,500, it may be more like £200 billion. The Tory party is often wonderful at ideas-talking the talk-but as I could prove on lots of other things, it is slightly less convincing when it comes to walking the walk.

Simon Hughes: The honest answer to my hon. Friend is that I learned that fact yesterday. Those people should be included.
	It is frustrating for my hon. Friend, other colleagues and myself that our hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) got a Bill on the statute book in 2004 for sustainable homes, and our hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) had a private Member's Bill earlier this year to deal with fuel poverty, which would have got through had the Government not blocked it. There have been opportunities, but time and again they have not been taken. I know that work is going on in the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I hope Ministers will realise that we should be seeing the results now. Unless we do, another winter, which is likely to bring problems, will see other people suffering.
	I shall make three other points; I am conscious that others want to speak. I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). The Minister was uncharacteristically-flippant is, perhaps, the wrong word-dismissive of the issue. It is scandalous that off the coasts of Britain there are tankers full of oil which are not unloading. They are waiting until the price goes up because they are being managed by the speculators. I know that there is nothing new about that. The global regime means that we have enough of the fuel. The oil is taken out of the ground, put on to tankers, and sits off the shore of the UK, not just anywhere, but in vulnerable marine environments such as off the coast of Dorset and the south-west. Some of us well remember the Torrey Canyon.
	I ask Ministers in the Department for Transport as well as Ministers in the Chamber-the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a responsibility too, as does the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change-to engage with the companies that own the oil and the tankers to ensure that the regime does not allow people to exploit the prices. We know what the effect is. The price of oil has increased-doubled in some cases-over the past year. Petrol at the pumps will probably be a quarter as much again at the end of the year as it was at the beginning.
	Prices are going up all the time. People are suffering because of those who are fiddling or abusing the system. I would like to hear from the Government what they intend to do. If they say that they and the global community can do nothing, that is an unacceptable answer. The public would think so, too. The energy companies-I did not hear Ministers say this-have an obligation to respond to the fact that when prices go down, the price to the consumer does not follow, but when prices go up, it seems to follow mighty quickly. The regulatory system has been inadequate since it was set up. I had hoped to hear a much tougher response from Ministers. I hope that we might do so before the end of the debate.
	In relation to other supplies, all parties are concerned that we should have energy security. There is a difference between us: the Labour and Tory parties believe that nuclear is a necessary component; we do not. We can have that argument separately, but the Liberal Democrats believe that nuclear makes a small contribution to dealing with emissions and a small contribution to our need, and that we could do much better and in a more accountable way by renewables.

Paul Holmes: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, in costing nuclear power, the Government must include the huge cost-£18 billion was recently suggested-of providing the underground long-term waste storage facility? The industry will never pay for that; it just assumes that the taxpayer will pick up the bill. If that was included in the costs, it would become quite clear not only that not a penny should go to nuclear power, but that the money should go into real clean and renewable energy, which is not nuclear.

Malcolm Wicks: I think that both things are true. We have made immense progress, not least under this Government, but there is still so much more that needs to be done.
	I want to focus on energy supply and security, putting the issues in a global context but focusing to some extent on Europe and particularly on our own country, the United Kingdom. There are serious matters to consider. When I stopped being energy Minister a year ago, the Prime Minister asked me to be his representative on energy security. I delivered my report to him in August; it was published by DECC and entitled "Energy Security: A national challenge in a changing world". If my words are of any interest and people want to know more, they will find it in that report.
	The key issue is that, post recession, the global grab-the global demand-for energy will surely be maintained. We speak at a peculiar time. According to the International Energy Agency's new report, "World Energy Outlook 2009", this is an almost-I think I use the word properly-unique year, because global demand for energy will go down, as will carbon emissions. When we come out of recession-I hope that we are doing so-this huge increase in demand for energy will be maintained. That is happening at a time when, historically, we are moving away from relative self-sufficiency in terms of indigenous energy in the UK towards a significant amount of import dependency, obviously for oil but also for gas. That involves serious issues as regards energy supply and security. I use the word "security" because this takes on a further resonance of national security. I remember the former Prime Minister Tony Blair, when the Langeled pipeline from Norway was opened-thank goodness we have it-saying that in this century, energy security could become as important to a nation's security as the conventional defence forces. That is at least an interesting point to consider.
	We have the benefit of the International Energy Agency, which has painted two scenarios of how global demand will increase. I will not go into too much detail, but they are closely related to Copenhagen. One is a reference scenario, if the energy efficiency and other policies that we have already agreed are implemented. The other is called the "450 scenario", because it sets out a world in which collective action is taken to limit long-term concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent. Many of today's useful contributions have been about the importance of securing that agreement.
	In the reference scenario, into which are built a lot of actions that Governments in Europe have promised and need to take, the assumption is that between 2007 and 2030, global energy demand will increase by 40 per cent. In the far more ambitious 450 scenario-maybe I could call it the Copenhagen scenario-that goes down to 20 per cent. That is still a huge increase, but only half the increase in the reference scenario. People can make their own judgments about what percentage increase is likely to take place in practice.
	Although there is much excitement, controversy and debate, not least in the House, about the contribution of new renewable technologies and the fairly new technology of nuclear, that global demand will be met in the main not by wind turbines and nuclear power stations, although they will start to make a greater contribution, but by fossil fuels-coal, gas and oil. They account for three quarters of the increase in demand in the reference scenario, and in the 450 scenario they still account for two thirds of the increase, even though coal is less important.
	As we know-this is part of the politics of Copenhagen-most of the extra demand will come from emerging and developing countries. We should be pleased that demand is fairly flat in OECD countries such as our own, even though it goes up and down in different countries. We are beginning to find out how to have economic growth without a correlation with energy demand. The challenge for our country is surely to reduce our demand for energy but move back to economic growth after the recession. According to the latest edition of the IEA's "World Energy Outlook", published just a couple of weeks ago, 93 per cent. of the increase in global demand to 2030 will come from non-OECD countries, driven largely by China and India. We all know the data that can be related to that situation, but just to give an illustration, the number of vehicles in China was some 23 million in 2005. By 2030, it will grow tenfold to 230 million.
	Why do I talk about the national security energy challenge? First, let us look at Europe. The EU already depends largely on imports, and that dependency will only grow in magnitude. By 2030, it will be getting some 90 per cent. of its oil, more than 80 per cent. of its gas and 50 per cent. of its coal from outside the Union. Parts of Europe, of course, already depend heavily on Russia, and we know some of the difficulties that that can bring about. Sadly, I would guess that the geopolitics of energy and security will become more important for Europe as the years, and possibly the next few decades, roll by.
	Let us look at Great Britain. To generalise, we have been blessed with self-sufficiency. In the pre-industrial era, people used wood and twigs-what would now be called biomass-to cook their food and keep warm by their fires. We then had the development of coal, which fuelled our industrial revolution and our industrial and economic development. After coal, we discovered oil and gas in our backyard, in the North sea on the wider UK continental shelf.
	What will happen in the next 10 or 20 years? The North sea oil and gas resources are in decline, although there are still plenty of resources out there, and it is still a major British industry. Many younger, smaller entrepreneurial companies are coming into the North sea, as some of the big boys move on to Brazil and elsewhere. The licensing round is always very active and resources remain to be exploited-for example, West of Shetland-and that augurs well. However, oil and gas production is in decline by 6 to 8 per cent. a year.

Brian Binley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the possibility of using North sea wells as carbon storage sites? Does he think that that would provide a real opportunity to extend the life of the North sea by-in some estimates-an additional 15 per cent. of the available oil? Is that a real prospect or should we discount it?

Malcolm Wicks: I intended to mention the importance of CCS a little later, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the injection of CO2 will help with enhanced oil recovery. Elsewhere in the world, CO2 is being used for that purpose. Given current technologies, a lot of oil and gas is left behind during extraction from the North sea, and recently the industry and the Government have been discussing that matter. Solving it would not be without costs or difficulties, but it is an important item on the agenda.
	To get back to my story, the North sea is in decline, as is nuclear, with perhaps only 15 per cent. of our electricity coming from nuclear-some of that electricity is above the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I give hon. Members a health warning about that one. At its height, some 30 per cent. of our electricity came from nuclear. The reactors are of varying ages, but they are old and need to be decommissioned, and then we will see the development of new nuclear reactors.
	We know the story of coal, too. I do not want to get too much into the politics of it, but coal was devastated by a previous regime, albeit not for industrial purposes or because the then Government were early converts to climate change-although the new Tories might rewrite the history on that-but largely for political reasons.
	There is huge potential in renewables, which I think we all support, although we need to support it in actuality, through onshore wind, and not just in rhetoric. However, as a percentage of all energy, renewables account for perhaps only 2 per cent. or so. The 15 per cent. target is the right target, but hitting it will be tremendously challenging.
	In the meanwhile, in the period before we can build up new nuclear-that will be largely after 2020, with the first one perhaps in 2017-and in which we can bite down on energy demand and develop our renewables, in my judgment we will see significant imports of energy. Let me take the example of gas. I know that some of the estimates about the future-they are only estimates-are contentious. I know, too, that there are different official estimates. There is a perfectly reasonable debate to be had, but the trend is essentially as follows.
	Only a few years ago we had a sufficiency of gas and we were exporting. Very recently we were self-sufficient, but we are now importing 20 to 25 per cent. of our gas. Some estimates-they are perfectly sensible estimates-suggest that by 2020 some 70 per cent. of our gas could be imported. Indeed, I have even seen the figure of 80 per cent. The more successful we are in reducing demand and bringing forward renewables, the more likely it is that 70 or 80 per cent. might seem an exaggeration. However, for contingency planning it is sensible to look at that issue.
	Where will the imports come from? I have mentioned the Langeled pipeline from Norway, and there is more potential to build up our relationship with Norway, as I argue in my energy security report. That is important, because the gas from Norway is good democratic, human-rights gas, and that cannot always be said of other gas!
	What is the agenda for action? Much of it has been touched on. Any sensible agenda, whether for energy security or climate change, starts with reducing energy demand and increasing energy efficiency. I subscribe to that position, but we need to recognise the sophistication and the broad nature of the approach that we need to adopt. Housing is of course important, and we can argue about the pace of change there. The development of zero-carbon housing by 2016 is important. We will see a great revolution in design and materials as we move towards higher standards of thermal efficiency in new build. How we integrate renewables into that will be crucial.
	Obviously, there is also transport, appliances and other things that we are familiar with. However, there are also things that I do not feel so tutored about, in the range of various industrial and business processes, such as pumps, valves and advanced control engineering, which I was hearing about at a conference the other day. All those things are important and can be developed by industry to reduce demand. Indeed, there is so much that can be said about that.
	Smart meters are important, but only if we link them to a public education programme, so that when people get their smart meters, they are told about a wider package of things that they can adopt, so that the whole community down that road, in that village or in that town gets behind the project.
	Energy efficiency is item number one. The second item is cleaning up fossil fuels. Some of the environmental groups might not like it, but we will be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the environmental groups will not stop the Chinese using them in future. So we have to become one of the world leaders in clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage. I am very pleased by the Government's position on this. As an energy Minister, I was frustrated by the pace of change, but no one has ever done this around a coal power station. We are moving pretty rapidly in the right direction, but let us become a world leader and help China and others to develop this technology.
	It is difficult to overstress the importance of CCS. It is not just another thing. Unless we get to grips with the challenge of CCS globally, all will be lost in terms of global warming, given that most of the energy that we use in the years to come is going to be obtained by burning fossil fuels. There will be huge technological challenges, including where to store, the fact that storage is very expensive, and the importance of the carbon price. There are all sorts of issues around financing, and the emissions trading scheme is very important.
	My next heading is gas. I make various recommendations about gas in the United Kingdom in my report, to which I know that the Government will respond before long. I am not trying to get the Minister to respond to it this evening. I worry about a new dash for gas. It is easier to build gas power stations than nuclear power stations, and it is probably easier to get planning permission for them than for large-scale wind farms. There is a danger of becoming over-dependent on gas, with all the implications that that has for imports.
	I raise three points about gas for the Government in my report. One is that Britain, compared with many other European countries, does not have in place significant numbers of long-term contracts for gas. We tend to contract with the suppliers and countries involved on a far shorter-term basis, and we often buy gas on the spot market. I can see advantages in that, but I can also see the disadvantages for our security of supply, and the Government need to address that.
	The second issue relates to the supply obligation. We place on our supply companies a supply obligation: the Centricas, EDFs and Scottish and Southerns of this world have to supply gas to us. What does this mean in practice? When I produced my report-with the help of a very able team from the Department for Energy and Climate Change-I found the gas supply obligation to be a bit like jelly: I could not get to grips with it.
	When I questioned key institutions on this matter, they recognised that all was not well. Let me spell it out. There is no way in the present regulatory system for National Grid or the regulator to establish whether there is likely to be sufficient availability of gas, in aggregate, in any coming period. That is not to say that the gas will not be there; it will be bought on the spot market or short term, but what would happen if we were to have another situation like Russia versus Ukraine? We had such a situation once, or possibly twice, during my tenure in office. Combined with a very cold winter in Europe, that created real difficulties for European energy supply and for us in the UK. I would therefore like to see greater clarity in the gas supply obligation, and I make that recommendation in my report.
	The third subject related to this is gas storage. It is quite easy for us to say that we need greater gas storage capacity. It is like motherhood and apple pie: we all want more gas storage. To defend where we are from an historical perspective, I would say that our gas storage area was the North sea. We had plentiful supplies and we were self-sufficient, but that is now in decline. We therefore now need to develop gas storage, and that is not quite so easy as some people make it sound. Are we talking about commercial gas storage, or about strategic gas storage? If we are talking purely about the former, the gas will be sold to the highest bidder.
	The reality at the moment is that our main store of gas-the Rough storage, which is administered by Centrica-is a store for gas that is owned by the different supply companies in Britain, including the French and German companies. Last winter, things were all right-ish, but if I had still been Minister, I would have been looking at the situation day by day, as I did in earlier winters. I am almost sure I am right in saying that, at that time, German supply companies were taking gas out of Rough storage and returning it to continental Europe. They had contracts to supply gas there, so we cannot blame them, and as I understand it there is nothing to stop that gas-we did not stop it-going to continental Europe at quite a difficult time. I put it to the House that this is quite a difficult issue.
	I believe either that we need strategic gas storage-gas that will be in the control of a democratic Government, subject to parliamentary accountability-or, if the gas storage is commercial, that we will need to explore the fact that the British Government under European law have a right to say that in extremis or in emergencies, some of that gas has to stay here in the UK. If it can simply go hither and thither in a crisis, it is not the kind of gas storage that many are calling for.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. To answer his question about the reserve storage of gas, it may well be motherhood and apple pie, but given the security issues involved, would it not be prudent and good sense to enshrine in law a statutory requirement to have a certain amount of days of reserve, as we have learned happens in France and Germany? This is not impossible; it is something that could be done very simply, and we should remember that we went down to about four days' worth of gas last year.

Malcolm Wicks: The short answer is yes. We need to have that requirement for commercial storage-my guess is that the Government would want to explore the legalities around that, given the single market and so forth-which would be perfectly acceptable in my judgment; but if that is not possible for legal or other reasons, we need strategic gas storage, which is very expensive-much more expensive, I am advised, than strategic oil storage. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's strong interest in this subject. Some may think it a grey area of debate, but given our current dependency on gas, it is a very important one. In my judgment, import dependency is going to grow in significance.
	I want to mention two other areas. I do not need to say much about renewables, as we have already discussed the importance and huge potential of renewable energy from the sun-even in Britain now-the seas, the wind and from biomass. We also know about the importance of hydro. It may not be as important here as in Sweden or Norway, but we are able to explore it on a smaller scale in imaginative ways. I, too, am excited about the potential of marine, wave and tidal energy, but I need to caution that this is very new technology. Yes, British companies are very good at it, and we could truly become a world leader as a result of our technological, engineering and entrepreneurial flair and the natural habitat in which we live as an island people. As I say, however, this is new technology and we should not exaggerate its contribution over the next 10 years. The 15 per cent. target for renewables is absolutely crucial. When I say that it is demanding, this is not a code for saying that we will not do it, but I put it to the House that this is a tough one and we will need to stretch every sinew to move there.
	Finally-I am sorry for having spoken so long, but there were interventions; I will blame them, anyway!-I come on to nuclear, which I know is controversial. I respect the position of the Liberal Democrats-they are wrong, but I respect their position. I believe public opinion has moved more in the direction of nuclear. I was privileged to lead the review on energy policy-Tony Blair asked me to do it some years ago now-which said yes, the Government would support and, where possible, facilitate the development of new nuclear. I believe it is important for climate reasons-some environmentalists still cannot quite make up their minds whether they hate nuclear more than they hate global warming, although some are changing their position, which I welcome.
	In my judgment, as well as being crucial for climate change reasons, nuclear is also crucial-I am almost saying equally crucial, but I am not sure that that is scientifically valid-in terms of energy security. In future, faced with import dependency, we need to do two things. We need to be as smart as possible in our foreign policy on import dependency so that we are not over-dependent on any one country, any one company, any one region-or any one fuel, which is why I support clean coal. The other side of the coin is that we need to build up our own indigenous sources of energy-energy that we can produce for ourselves, hence my commitment to both nuclear and renewables. I go rather further in my report than perhaps this Government and this Parliament are prepared to go by saying that if by around 2030 we could have 35 to 40 per cent. of our electricity coming from nuclear, that would be a sensible place for Britain to be.

Jacqui Lait: I hope that it will not embarrass my next-door constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), if I say that that was one of the most interesting speeches I have ever heard on the security of energy supply, which is a crucial issue that needs to be resolved and should have been addressed much earlier than when the Government asked the right hon. Gentleman to prepare his report.
	I recall during my young adulthood in Scotland how we had to deal with the discovery of North sea oil and gas, yet now as I prepare to retire we are looking at how to reduce quantities of oil and gas. It is an issue of which I have been conscious for a long time. Given that I live close to Dungeness power station, I am also conscious of the ageing of our nuclear power stations-I nearly said our nuclear fleet. It is a great sadness to me and to many on the Romney marsh that the Government have so far ruled out the building of a third power station at Dungeness on the grounds of what Natural England said rather than on what I would have thought was the more logical ground of the potential for movement of the shingle. I believe that, engineering-wise, that problem could be solved. It was fascinating to listen to the right hon. Member for Croydon, North.
	I do not intend to concentrate too much on the Bill that the Government propose to present in the few weeks left to them. Nor do I intend to spend too much time discussing Copenhagen, because we have already discussed it at great length. I will say, however, that whether or not one is a supporter of the science of climate change it is surely common sense for consumers to reduce the amount that they spend on energy, and for that practical reason I am sad that so far there has been little effective action to develop new technologies in the new industries.
	It is true that we have wind farms. We have a wind farm on the Romney Marsh, although I am afraid that it is not taken terribly seriously because for most of the time its turbines are not turning. There is endless anecdotal evidence that wind farms have not been built quite correctly. There is also a great deal of evidence that carbon capture has been delayed by the Government's dithering. In Kingsnorth, E.ON was prepared to build a new coal-fired power station as part of the original competition for carbon capture and storage, but-fundamentally because of Government dither and delay-it decided that the game was not worth the candle. As we all know, environmental protesters collected at the power station and had a rather unpleasant confrontation with, primarily, the police. If the Government had not dithered over the scheme and the competition, we might have moved much further down the route of developing our own carbon capture technology.
	Along with the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who is present and whose constituency includes the lovely and literary Hebden Bridge area, I was on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's delegation to Australia this year. People there told us proudly that they had created an international centre for carbon capture technology. The bulk of Australia's energy comes from brown coal. The Australians are committed to reducing their emissions under Copenhagen, and they realise that if they are to do that it is essential for them to develop carbon capture. I wonder about the degree to which we in the United Kingdom are trying to reinvent the wheel with our carbon capture schemes. I wonder to what extent there is an international exchange of information about the technologies being developed, about what works and what does not work, and about how we can move from demonstration to production. It would be such a waste of entrepreneurial abilities if we developed in parallel rather than together.
	I find it fascinating that, apart from passing references, there has been no mention of how solar energy could help to meet our energy requirements. There are Government grants to help people to install solar panels, but they are difficult to obtain. Four or five years ago China set out to develop production systems for solar panels so that they could reduce production costs to a level enabling them to capture the world market.
	Another thing that I learnt in Australia was that there was considerable resentment because the Chinese were exporting cheap solar panels to Australia which were challenging those being produced indigenously, but we have to live with that. It is not dumping; it is driving the market so that more and more people can use solar panels. I do not understand why we are not doing more in this country to encourage people to use them. I do not think that the Government's proposed Bill will address that question in any way. In household terms, I think that microgeneration is the easiest and quickest way for every one of us, in our domestic lives, to contribute to the reduction of our carbon footprint.
	Another issue that seems to have been omitted from the debate so far, and does not appear to have been included in the Bill-although I hope that I can encourage the Government to include it-is the production of energy from waste. Local authorities currently spend huge amounts on trying to avoid sending waste to landfill, and we know of the difficulties that that is causing our local communities. There will be one collection in one week and another in a different week; people wonder whether there is a chip in the bin to establish how much waste they have put out, and whether they are allowed to put out six bottles a week instead of five. All those rather claustrophobia-inducing management demands drive many householders demented. But if-or rather when; there is no "if"-we develop the new generation of incineration with scrubbed emissions, we can feed electricity into the local community and into the grid, and when we develop anaerobic digestion we can do exactly the same. Why are we not creating an economy that favours that form of waste disposal? It would mean that waste would not go to landfill but could produce useful heat and energy-and we could stop irritating our fellow residents at the same time.
	There has been a fair amount of comment about nuclear power. I believe-and the right hon. Member for Croydon, North seemed to agree-that it is the best way in which to generate relatively low-carbon-emission electricity and energy. When the Secretary of State published the draft national policy statement on energy recently, he told me that the public consultation on it would continue until February. He expects it to come to the House in March for consideration by the Select Committees. It does not take a great brain to work out that the consultation will not end before the general election. There is an immediate and built-in delay in the progress of national policy statements.
	Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) pointed out, the system provided by the Planning Act 2008 is completely open to judicial review. According to the 13 November issue of "Planning", the Town and Country Planning Association has said that
	"the NPSs make the "very profound mistake" of not including carbon assessment for energy projects."
	If it is not included in the NPS, there will be an application for a judicial review and we shall see more of the delays resulting from the debate about Sizewell. We shall ensure that there are delays in the building of nuclear power stations. We cannot assume, merely because we have passed the Planning Act, that we will magically secure the nuclear power stations that we need unless we ensure that national policy statements are voted on democratically in the House. That would make it possible for Secretaries of State who no longer wish to make such decisions to make them, and to make them much more quickly than the Infrastructure Planning Commission need do. That is the basis for getting rid of the Infrastructure Planning Commission. We must get democratic legitimacy within the planning system if we are to get the infrastructure built. If we do not, we are unlikely to be able to move forward.
	The right hon. Member for Croydon, North talked about the target for zero-carbon houses by 2016. I do not whether the right hon. Gentleman noticed- Hansard will tell us whether I am correct-but I thought that the Secretary of State said "near-zero-carbon houses". I notice that there is a written statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government on that subject-I have not seen it yet. Whether the Government are resiling from that commitment-I would not blame them, as it will be next to impossible to achieve it anyway-and are breaking the news gently, or whether it was a slip of the tongue, I do not know. If we are getting a more realistic target for reducing emissions from domestic houses and are moving away from the lifestyle constraints implied by zero-carbon houses, I am glad to see common sense dawn. With a bit of luck we will be able to get more buy-in for reducing carbon emissions from houses rather than banning them altogether.
	I feel desperately sorry for DEFRA, because nobody has mentioned that Department so far. It is lovely to see the Secretary of State here; he has sat patiently wondering if anyone will mention anything to do with the countryside. I join completely all the messages of sympathy and support sent to everybody who has been affected by the flooding in Cumbria. It is a ghastly thing to happen to so many people in an area where it is difficult to get the help that is needed. I feel very sad and send them all best wishes. There is a reference in the Queen's Speech to a flooding Bill. Its proposals could be implemented by changing who is responsible for what and making it clear which local authority has what powers. The only other thing in the Queen's Speech that might affect the rural community is the broadband Bill, which could bring some economic strength to deprived rural areas. For farmers, fruit farmers, fishermen or environmentalists, however, there is nothing that will in any way, shape or form help them to live a more productive and helpful life.
	I want to talk briefly about the other Bills proposed in the Queen's Speech. I could not believe that there is to be legislation to halve the deficit. Legislation will not halve the deficit; action will. There is a Bill to ensure good schooling. Legislation will not ensure good schooling; good teachers, good head teachers and good parents will. There is yet another promise to halve child poverty. Legislation does not halve child poverty; the economy and social structure will ensure that children no longer live in poverty.
	For 12 years we have had a Government who believe that legislation is the answer. For 12 years we have been telling them that legislation is the problem. It is not delivering because the Government believe so often that if they pass an Act, nothing more needs to be done. We must create the circumstances in which we get the outcomes that we want, That is the key to decent legislation. Sadly, this Queen's Speech is probably more an electoral statement than anything to do with achieving the laudable objectives set out in it.
	There are things that I would have liked to have seen in the Queen's Speech. The scandal of the exploitation of public sector leaseholders needs to be addressed by legislation. The emerging scandal of leaseholders who live in retirement homes needs to be addressed by legislation. Why is there no legislation to get rid of the stigma of the housing estate? People say that they live on a certain housing estate and are immediately pigeonholed and almost stigmatised with failure. Such legislation would help us to move this country towards becoming a positive, forward-looking community.
	The saddest thing of all-there is nothing in the Queen's Speech to address it-is the statement by Lord Strathclyde that the House of Lords will ensure that most of the legislation does not get through. The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. It is this Chamber that should ensure whether or not legislation gets through. For the House of Lords to be able to claim that it has the ability to stop legislation shows how this House of Commons has been demeaned by the Government, who have taken from it the ability to look properly and thoroughly at legislation and to decide whether or not that legislation is of quality. That is not the job of the House of Lords; it is the job of the Commons. If there is one thing that I sincerely hope my party addresses after the election, it is that the House of Commons regains its primacy and democratic legitimacy.

Linda Gilroy: Indeed, and I shall come to that. I shall also wish to touch on the Bill in my capacity as chair of the all-party group on water. I will explain why the Bill is so important, although that is clear from the events we have witnessed this week. I cannot understand how anybody could possibly say it is not prescient for such a measure to be in the Queen's Speech.
	I wish to cover five issues. The first of them is about a specific aspect of climate change that is little spoken about, perhaps because it emerged on the agenda only at the 2005 conference at the Met Office in Exeter while we were holding the chairmanship of the G8: ocean acidification, or the other CO2 problem as it sometimes referred to. Secondly, I will welcome some of the measures in the Energy Bill. Thirdly, I will anticipate the long-awaited final report of the Walker review on water metering and charging. Fourthly, and alongside that, I will welcome measures in the Flood and Water Management Bill. Fifthly, I shall raise one small, but very important, issue that brings both water and energy together in a way that could lead to a reduction in water bills, fuel bills and the carbon footprint.
	First, let me turn to ocean acidification-the other CO2 problem. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change recently visited Plymouth. When we were walking from the railway station to the university-yes, we walked there-to attend a question-and-answer session, I said to him that I must represent one of the most environmentally literate constituencies in the country, as there are 450 marine scientists working in it and some 1,400 to 1,500 environmental students at the university. Some of these people serve on international forums and work with scientists across the globe, including, particularly, Dr. Carol Turley of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, who has served on the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change and who plays a leading role in the ocean acidification reference user group.
	Even before the Secretary of State arrived, I was receiving e-mails from disappointed people who could not attend the question-and-answer session asking me to make sure the Secretary of State was fully seized of the importance to climate change of the other CO2 problem of ocean acidification. He went away with a heavy load of papers. I promised to let him have a CD of an animation that the Ridgeway school at Plympton made, and which has been shown at Copenhagen international conferences. It outlines this problem, graphically setting out the consequences and the way in which the sea has acted as a buffer for 25 per cent. of the CO2 produced since the industrial revolution. A key consequence is that the seas have become more acidic as carbon dioxide absorbed in the ocean becomes carbonic acid, and the sea water acidity has increased by 30 per cent. over that period. Without the steps proposed to limit our carbon emissions, this will accelerate and by 2060 sea water acidity could have increased by 120 per cent., greater than any increase in the past 21 million years.
	This matters because at the bottom of the food chain in the oceans are many tiny creatures: zoo plankton, which have tiny shells and skeletons; shellfish, which are slightly larger; and molluscs, which play a very important role in daily diets across the world, and particularly of those of some poorer communities. The very existence of these creatures is threatened, as ocean acidification dissolves their small shells and skeletons.
	The air we breathe depends on a healthy ocean for the production of oxygen, and the productive layers of seas stimulate clouds that help to shade the planet. These are just a couple of a cocktail of essential processes in the ocean that will be impacted upon by carbon emissions if the climate change talks do not come to a successful conclusion. If unchecked, carbon emissions could progressively affect whole ecosystems and trigger a chain reaction through the food chain. Apparently, there remains a degree of uncertainty in some people's minds about the impacts of climate change. The chemical changes in the ocean are much more certain and predictable, however. Although they are relatively minor at present, the impact of unchecked carbon emissions will be incremental, and the acidification process adds considerable weight to the arguments for immediate and significant cuts in CO2.
	If my city is one of the most climate-change and carbon-emission literate, I believe the south-west region and the United Kingdom will be among the most literate at Copenhagen. We have big responsibilities to lead, and to persuade not only that we have a problem, but that it must be tackled as a matter of urgency. It is characteristic of what happens in any period of change that there are leaders, early and late followers and laggards. If there are any late followers and laggards during the Copenhagen discussions, I hope our hon. and right hon. Friends who will be representing us there will tell them of the other CO2 problem, which is about not the sometimes too benign sounding "global warming", but the acidification of the oceans, which cover 70 per cent. of the globe. I hope they will tell them about the 80 years of long-term plankton data recording science at the second oldest marine laboratory in the world on Plymouth Hoe, which is the basis of the work of the current scientists who are leading globally in their field and of some of the eight Nobel scientists who have been based at that laboratory.
	Of course, we have to walk the talk. The Energy Bill does further work in that regard in implementing elements of the UK low-carbon transition plan in important ways, and by changing the remit of Ofgem in a way that is essential to the implementation of that plan by making sure that not only competition, but climate change and the transition plan, feature in the important decisions Ofgem makes in regulating the market. There are important measures at the other end of the spectrum as well, such as putting in place statutory protection for vulnerable customers. I would like that to extend-I am not sure it does this in its current form-to making sure some of the poorest customers do not have to pay higher tariffs.
	A number of Members from both sides of the House attended a National Housing Federation reception yesterday, at which we were reminded of the continuing prepayment rip-off of the difference in respect of dual tariff from many of the big providers. The difference between prepayment and the average direct debit cost is £106 for British Gas, £77 for EDF, £105 for npower, £99 for E.ON UK, £108 for Scottish Power and £102 for Scottish and Southern Energy. These still amount to very significant sums of money for some of the poorest households in the country, and I wish the Bill had touched on that. No doubt a measure to deal with that problem is one that a Member who is fortunate enough to be drawn in the private Member's Bill ballot might wish to try to take forward, if that is not achieved through this particular Bill.
	At that reception, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), heard about how more is being done in his constituency to encourage low-income families to switch to the best tariff. I was particularly struck by the work the Stafford and Rural Homes housing association is doing to ensure that any incoming tenant to a new home is encouraged to look at the best tariff for them. Among lower income households, not nearly enough benefit is taken from the ability to switch from one provider to another who will often offer them significantly better tariffs.
	I took the opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at one way in which fuel poverty, water poverty and water use generally overlap. I know that our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), was well seized of the links when he was water Minister. I believe that his successor, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), is also taking these issues on board. Our all-party group report "The Future of the UK Water Sector", which was published last year, points out that
	"around 40 per cent. of energy used in households is to heat water".
	There is, thus, an enormous potential for saving both energy and water. Pipe runs between the point of heating and the point of use are often long, which means that water is drawn off and hot water left in the pipes. There is a big job to be done both on retrofitting and on ensuring that the new building standards deal with that effectively. I am pleased to see that the potential for such savings is acknowledged in the interim report of the Walker review on metering and charging. I hope that when its final report is published-I hope that will be before Christmas-it will hold out real help for the too long hard-pressed water users on low incomes all over the country.

Linda Gilroy: In common with a number of Liberal Democrats, I have been involved in several Adjournment debates over the many years leading up to the Walker review, and I have pressed the relevant Minister on that issue. We should be able to examine any pressing matters that arise from the review to see whether they can be incorporated. However, I must acknowledge that some of the measures in the Bill are of immediate and pressing importance, especially in the context of what has happened this week. These things were recognised in the all-party group's report.
	As the hon. Gentleman can well imagine, I shall be pressing Ministers to find ways to proceed where legislation may be necessary, but legislation will not be needed to implement much of what was in the interim report of Anna Walker's review-confusingly, two Walker reviews are taking place at the moment. Our Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team has a big strategic role to play in supporting the climate change discussions that the Department of Energy and Climate Change will lead on, and I am pleased that, as part of that, we have a water Bill that deals with some important matters. I shall return to those in just a moment. I hope that the other important work, which has been running in parallel, can also be developed where appropriate.
	The interim report was promising, but I know that there has been substantial engagement with the consultation on it. Much water has flowed under the bridge, and I hope that proposals that are even more radical than some of the very good ones that were in Anna Walker's interim report may result. The Flood and Water Management Bill addresses some important lessons arising from the problems encountered during previous floods that were similar to those causing such devastation in parts of the country, in particular, in Cumbria.
	Prevention is better than cure, and as chair of the all-party group, I welcome the work done in the run-up to producing the Bill. The 2007 floods caused major disruption, particularly in Hull, Doncaster, Leeds and the Severn valley, caused £3 billion of damage, affected 55,000 properties and resulted in the loss of 13 lives. Sir Michael Pitt's report in the wake of those floods made it clear that we needed to change the legislation governing how we manage floods and our water systems. The Bill contains important measures to implement some of what he and the Cave report said needed to happen.
	The Bill is also important to the insurance industry, because without it, the industry will be less and less willing to insure-we all know that that is already a problem-and there will be increasing reliance on, and costs for, the Government. Many more people are finding that they cannot get insurance and, thus, the Bill is important. It will also ensure that all involved in the water, flooding and coastal erosion systems have clear roles and responsibilities. I do not imagine that I am the only MP who has faced small flooding issues in my constituency involving many stakeholders. One such situation has been going on for many years in Laira avenue, in my constituency, and I frequently have to bring together the council, Network Rail, a housing developer and the water company, because nobody plays that role well at the moment. From this Bill onwards, local authorities will have a strategic role to play, which should make dealing with such circumstances much more straightforward.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who spoke so excellently, said that she sympathised with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because nobody had touched on those issues that are his responsibility, but when he sees me in the Chamber, he is well aware that I will talk about flooding, which is very much his issue.
	The debate is wide ranging. One can talk about energy, as many hon. Members have, and about climate change, farming and many other issues. I would have an interest in speaking on all those things, but because of the shortness of time and the number of other hon. Members who want to speak, I shall contain my remarks to flooding.
	I represent Tewkesbury, which I am proud to do, and obviously two and half years ago we had the most horrendous floods, as did other parts of the country, and because of that, and because the problem is obviously very difficult, I deeply sympathise with the people of Cumbria. I spoke to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) for just a few minutes yesterday and he is obviously working extremely hard. He sounded-I say this in the nicest possible way-absolutely exhausted by his efforts. However, he is unstinting and is carrying on doing the work that he needs to do. I pay tribute to him and to all the other people who are working so hard. I also send my deepest sympathies to the friends and families of those who have lost their lives. We lost three people in Tewkesbury because of the floods and it has a devastating effect.
	I say this respectfully, but anybody who has not been involved in any way or who has not been to visit people who have been flooded can fully understand the devastation that it causes. In Tewkesbury, people were living in caravans for more than a year because of the floods. That was remarkable in itself, but what was in some ways even more remarkable was the spirit and resilience of those people. Everybody whom I went to see just before Christmas of that year said, "Oh, don't worry about us. We're okay. We're not as badly off as some people." They were living in caravans-young people, old people, children and people who were seriously ill-and the flooding had a devastating effect, but their spirit and resilience were not broken. I am sure that that will be the case in Cumbria.
	Let me speak briefly about flooding and flood prevention. I agree with my hon. Friend that legislation often does not put things right. It is important to recognise that it is not the end but the beginning of the process. I think that that was the point that she was striving to make when she spoke so excellently a few minutes ago. That said, I want the Government to introduce the Flood and Water Management Bill early in this Session. It has been trailed for a long time and I hope that it is introduced fairly quickly, because of course a general election is coming up in not too many months. Even if we run to the latest time, that does not give us an awful lot of time to carry out the legislative programme that the Government want to introduce. I hope that the Bill comes forward quickly. One slightly good thing to come out of the tragic events in Cumbria might be that the Bill will be given parliamentary time very soon.
	It is also important that the Bill is given sufficient time to be considered. Far too often, we rush legislation through when we really do not need to. An awful lot of time is wasted in this House and we should give more time to considering the legislation in detail, particularly in Committee and on Report.

Linda Gilroy: I simply want to agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to have more time, particularly on that Bill. It would also be good to have an early Second Reading debate in light of the circumstances that prevail this week.

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government should give very firm instructions to their inspectors to be much more robust about planning policy statement 25? My Castle Point borough council, which happens to be Tory controlled, wants to build several hundred houses on the Canvey Island floodplain, where 58 people died in the 1953 floods. Does he agree that it should be stopped from doing that?

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she very conveniently takes me on to the next point, which concerns the pressure placed on local authorities by the regional spatial strategy.
	When this Government came to power, they said that they wanted to end the "predict and provide" approach to housing. Like me, many hon. Members will remember that statement. I thought, "There we go. I'm not going to be able to disagree with everything that this Government say." However, they have not only reinforced that approach, they have regionalised it. They have reinforced it by making it a requirement to build 3 million extra houses over the next 20 years or so, but how did they know that we would need that many houses in that period? Why has the power to decide how many houses are needed, and where they should go, been handed to the regions? The decisions are almost site-specific, but I do not know who is making them. It is not local councillors, because if it were we could go to them and say, "We disagree with you and we're going to boot you out next time because we don't like what you're doing." We cannot do that with the RSS.
	In my constituency, the proposal in the RSS is to build more than 14,000 houses. How on earth can we find space for all those houses when the area concerned is a flood risk? I do not care whether we are just on one side or the other of a line on a map, because that is not what is important. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) mentioned, the planning process does not take account of the theory of water displacement.
	It is not only a matter of whether the new houses flood. When the hon. Gentleman visited Tewkesbury, the new houses flooded as they were being built, but the other problem is that they also displace water and send it somewhere else. The water in Tewkesbury is, as we speak, resting on green fields. It does that quite frequently, as certain parts of the fields in the town flood several times a year. That is not a problem, but concreting over those green fields causes that water to go somewhere else.
	I was never big on science at school, but the theory is pretty obvious-the water is going to go somewhere else. It is profoundly wrong, and dangerous, for the RSS to propose that 14,000 houses be built in my area. The people who put the strategy together do not live there and obviously have not studied it, because they do not know what they are talking about.
	It is not just in my area that there have been objections to the RSS. The Secretary of State will know that in the south-west region there have been 35,000 representations about that document, for very many different reasons. The document is fairly technical, and is not necessarily something that people wake up with in the morning. People do not normally get involved in responding to the RSS, but 35,000 have.

Laurence Robertson: I am not sure that my party has said that. As I understand the policy, it is to scrap the regional assemblies and the RSS process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that will not necessarily be absolutely perfect or a utopia, and I am sure that I will still have disputes and arguments with my Front-Bench team or local councils, but at least I will know who I am arguing with and what the process is. To me, that is far more honest than the system that we have now.
	The people of the north-east were asked whether they wanted elected regional assemblies, and they said no. What have the Government done? They have carried on devolving powers to regional assemblies that are unelected. That cannot be the right way to go.
	Because of all the interventions, which I have been very glad to take, I have spoken for far longer than I intended. I shall end with two very quick points, the first of which has been mentioned. Since the floods in my area, some people have not been able to get insurance and others have had to pay vastly increased premiums. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, some have had to cover extraordinarily high excess payments. I had a telephone call today about someone with an excess of £20,000 on his house. In effect, that means that that person is not insured against flooding, because it would probably not cost more than that to fix the damage.
	The insurance industry, of course, is a business that has to fund itself and make itself pay, but I wish insurance companies could be a bit more flexible and understanding. I do not know whether the Government can help in that regard, or whether they have had discussions with the industry. I presume that they have, but a bit more flexibility and understanding would not go amiss.
	My final point has to do with water supplies. I do not know what the situation is in Cumbria, but we in Tewkesbury lost our water supplies as a result of the floods. Some people were without water for up to three weeks, and the entire county came very close losing its electricity supply. I understand that the problems in Gloucestershire amounted to the largest peacetime emergency that this country has ever had, but can the House imagine how much worse it would have been if we had lost our entire electricity supply? If it is possible to provide alternative water and power supplies, such systems certainly should be in place, as well as the protective barriers that can be built around those utilities.
	I send my deepest sympathies to the people of Workington. I can put my hand on my heart and say that I know what people there are going through. I sincerely hope that they come through the experience with the same spirit and resilience as my constituents did.

Nia Griffith: Absolutely. My constituency happens to have that tricky combination: short, steep hills next to a coastal plain. Any geologist, geographer or hydrologist will say that that is classic flood country. The rain comes down the slope very quickly, so we have to look at all sorts of areas that are close to the river banks or that are likely to flood with water from those slopes. We need to do a lot of work, and should be much more cautious about what we build where; we should think first.
	I move on to a problem that, though small, is of enormous significance to those affected, and that will be addressed by the Bill, namely the adoption of private sewers. The problem is terrible for those whom it affects. It has certainly affected people in my constituency, in places such as Cleviston park, Derlyn park and Dolau Fan road. When something has gone wrong, residents there have found, to their absolute horror, that they are on what is called a private sewerage system. They did not know that because they have paid-some of them for as long as 40 years-what were water rates and are now water charges in the same way as everybody else. They have paid and paid, like everybody else; of course, the sewers for which they are paying are taking some of the local authority's water off the local authority's highways.
	Suddenly, when something goes wrong-it may be a blockage, because the pipes may not have been of the best quality-the system is discovered to be completely weird, but certainly not wonderful, with pipes doubling back on themselves in people's back gardens, and crossing from one garden to another in an absurd way. That has left people such as my constituents with bills of around £2,500 for one simple break to be repaired. They have to pay that in addition to paying the water rates that they have paid for years. The Bill will end that practice and make sure that, after the 2003 survey, which included a mapping exercise of all the private sewers across the country, water companies will be forced by legislation in 2011 to adopt all the systems on estates that have not been properly adopted in the past. That will be of tremendous importance to those people.
	In Wales, powers can be drawn down by the Welsh Assembly Government, and we very much look forward to that. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), has been closely involved in work with the relevant Minister from the Welsh Assembly Government to make sure that that happens. It should be simpler for Wales, as it has only two main companies-Welsh Water and Severn Trent Water-with which to negotiate, so that should happen very soon. I was somewhat shocked at a public meeting that I called not very long ago to hear how proud Welsh Water was of paying a dividend of £21 per water-charged household throughout Wales. That was a very nice dividend, but those of us who are comfortably off could probably have done without that £21, because we would not have noticed if it had not been returned. However, Welsh Water balks at the thought that it might cost £5 to £30 per household to absorb the costs of sewer adoption. Everyone at the meeting thought that that was quite absurd: one minute, the company was giving back money, but the next it was saying, "Well, we don't know how the negotiations will go with the Welsh Assembly Government. We don't know whether we can adopt those sewers, as a certain amount of money might be added to the bill-perhaps £5 to £30.

Roger Williams: The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way. I very much agree with her. Some houses in my constituency have been subject to sewer flooding, and I have always said that it would be far better not to pay a dividend of £21 or £22 a year, and instead to ensure that the affected houses are safeguarded from that occurrence, and to take up the sewerage systems that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Maria Miller: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who raised a number of important issues, particularly the need for clarity on different responsibilities, which I encountered in my constituency when it was difficult to assess who was responsible for the clean-up after flooding that occurred as a result of building works. Even more importantly, we should make sure that we do not build in inappropriate places. There are great examples in history of houses and palaces built next to water courses. Indeed, I live in a 400-year-old barn, which was built in Huish-an Old English word for "damp"-next to a spring, and it is still standing somehow. There are examples of how that can work, but all too often the reverse happens, and those houses are devastated by flooding. The hon. Lady therefore made some important points, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who spoke about the need to ensure that development is appropriate.
	I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. I shall probably redress the balance in favour of environmental issues, as opposed to the energy issues that dominated our initial proceedings. The Flood and Water Management Bill in the Gracious Speech gives us an opportunity to deal with important issues relating to development, and I shall develop that theme. This is a timely debate, and I echo the comments made about problems experienced in Cumbria, Wales and many parts of the country, and the devastation that the floods have brought to local communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury said that it is probably difficult for someone to appreciate the true impact of flooding until they have experienced for themselves losing all their belongings or their home. I hope that the people who have been affected receive all the support that they need, and I pay tribute to the heroic work of the emergency services in the past week.
	Recent events have heightened our awareness of the natural limits that the environment imposes on every single community, so we must keep a careful eye on the implications of climate change. Water has always played a fundamental role in all communities, which were set up because there was a water source close at hand. That water source has nurtured our communities, enabled them to grow and has shaped them in many respects, too. Moving water about and storing it is expensive. Cleaning it is costly and subject to technical limitations. When I began to read the Bill, I felt that it was just scratching the surface of the issues that arise when we look at water management and flooding. I echo the comments made by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the Bill is a slimmed-down version of what is needed.
	If we are looking for consensus, however, we can find it on the need for sustainable development. Environmental concerns should play a considerable role in helping to determine the way in which our communities develop in future. The Bill in the Gracious Speech should not be a missed opportunity to reinforce that even further. There has been much talk today about making tough decisions-the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change used that phrase on several occasions. He also urged us to believe the science, and to make sure that we are convinced, as issues arising from climate change will affect the way in which our communities will have to operate in future. I challenge the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who is sitting on the Front Bench, on whether all his colleagues are convinced about issues of sustainability and environmental sustainability.
	When we begin to look at work that has been done, particularly on planning and development, we can see that there is a great deal of paperwork on environmental sustainability. Indeed, the new Bill specifically establishes the need for a
	"local flood risk management strategy",
	which will be developed by a county council or a local district council in the regional spatial plans that we discussed earlier. Specific attention is paid to the environmental impact of house building, particularly in local communities. In my constituency in Basingstoke, as a result of the south-east development plan, we have undertaken an extensive four-year water cycle study, to consider pollution levels in our local river. Various consultations have been undertaken by water companies and the Environment Agency to make sure that we are aware of environmental issues as they pertain to house building and planning.
	However, when I look at the actions of Government Departments other than DEFRA, I question whether there is complete buy-in to the goal of environmental sustainability, and whether the Bill offers Ministers the opportunity to make sure that their colleagues in other Departments have got the message. In relation to house building particularly, environmental sustainability cannot be ignored. As the hon. Lady said, we cannot set it to one side. It is a matter on which we will be judged by our children and our children's children.
	Perhaps in the Department for Communities and Local Government there is not complete buy-in to the concept of sustainability. Having examined the problems in my constituency, I cannot understand why the Department would endorse a building target of 19,000 houses by 2026 if it truly bought into the vision of environmental sustainability. Along with many areas of the south-east, Basingstoke is an area of serious water stress. The Government acknowledge that the effects of climate change will lead to a reduction in the supply of water in my constituency and an increase in demand.
	In terms of water supply, the situation in north Hampshire is worse than in some Mediterranean countries. My local river, the River Loddon, is in extreme breach of the European water framework directive. The phosphorus levels-which, as the Minister is aware, are directly linked to levels of population-are six times higher than the water framework directive standards because of the effluent discharges from my local sewage works. I am told by those who are expert in these matters that there is no sewage treatment works in the country and no technology in the world that could reduce the pollution in that river to levels consistent with the water framework directive. Building one more house, let alone 19,000 more, is problematic if we are to be truly sustainable in our approach to developing our communities.
	I mentioned earlier that there has been an expensive and extensive water cycle report, which has been going on for about four years. That has confirmed that house building levels set by Ministers through their regional assemblies will perpetuate the situation. There will be no improvement in the water quality and the pollution levels in my local river if house building continues in the way that the Government foresee. In case hon. Members are not aware, the river is a north-flowing salmonoid river, one of very few in the country, and a prize possession in our local area.
	In my constituency, 75 per cent. of the water comes from chalk aquifers, so abstraction of water from underground is key. Even before the proposed increase in house building, the way we get our water is resulting in a lowering of the water table because of the increased abstractions that we have had to undertake in recent years. As a result of excessive abstraction in the neighbouring Whitewater valley area, there is already possible environmental damage, which is being closely monitored. On behalf of my constituents, I pay tribute to the work of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight wildlife trust for all the work that it does in identifying and protecting fragile and important areas such as the Mapledurwell fen, where there is a risk to the environment from a lowering of the water table as a result of high abstraction levels.
	Too many of the tools that the Government are foisting on local authorities do not seem to take account of the importance of environmental sustainability. I refer to the strategic housing land availability assessments, with which many other hon. Members may be grappling-those nicely termed SHLAAs, as our local councillors are starting to call them. They are being used to determine where houses might end up, without even considering issues of biodiversity or the quality of the landscape and its importance in the local community. Despite all these troubling environmental indicators, my constituency, along with the south-east, is being earmarked as the centre of house building in the country.
	We cannot allow the debate to go by without Ministers responding to that. There seems to be a disconnect between house building and environmental sustainability, and the consequent overloading of the south-east with house building. What assurances can the Secretary of State give when he winds up the debate to me, my constituents and other Members who represent areas in the south-east about the priority that should be given to environmental sustainability in the context of house building in the future? The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change spoke about making hard choices. I do not see those hard choices being made when it comes to saying no to development that might fundamentally affect the environmental quality and sustainability of our communities in the future.
	I know that many hon. Members are keen to participate in the debate because it is such an important subject for us and our constituents. The second area that I shall touch on is the involvement of local communities, which is picked up in the Flood and Water Management Bill. I welcome the apparent increase in the role of local authorities in strategy and planning for flood management.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli stressed the importance of clarity of roles. Reading through the Bill, I can understand that the intention is to clarify the roles undertaken by county councils and district councils, and that the Government are rightly introducing some flexibility so that local authorities can work matters out for themselves. Let us make sure that that flexibility does not turn into a lack of understanding, particularly among constituents who might be affected by these issues, and that there is a clear demarcation of role in practice.
	A further question that I would throw to those on the Government Front Bench is how local authorities can balance the conflicting priorities of hitting the Government's house building targets and being responsible for managing flood risk. As we have heard in the debate, those could be conflicting priorities. Where are they to put the houses if the housing number is set so solidly, if they are restricted by the risk of flooding or unsuitability for other environmental reasons? We must make sure that we address that conflict. I urge the Minister, if he has not already done so, to look at the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), which would help enormously to overcome some of the conflicts by putting the scheduling of house building and the determination of house building levels into the hands of local elected representatives.

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is right to question the numbers. Rather than questioning the numbers myself, I should like my local elected representatives to be in charge of house building and the scale of house building that might be undertaken in that locality. They are best placed to know how a community should develop, and how they want their community to develop. That is where the power should lie, rather than in Whitehall, as it has in recent years.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli spoke about private sewers. I thought I might be the only person to pick that topic out of the Bill. It seems that many of the 200,000 km of private sewers reside in my constituency. For hon. Members who have not encountered it, the issue is that housing estates are developed and because of their set-up the sewerage systems, which we would naturally presume would be handed over to the relevant authority to be maintained, remain the responsibility of local residents. That can come as something of a shock to some residents, but even more of a shock are the bills that are sometimes associated with such private sewers.
	I see the Under-Secretary nodding in agreement that that provision is quite firmly in the Bill, but I ask for clarification about how it will be rolled out, because it is a potentially significant financial issue for local water companies-the organisations that will take over responsibility for private sewerage systems. Many sewers in my constituency have deteriorated significantly because of a lack of maintenance, mostly due to tree roots having gone through the sides of pipes and caused blockages and as a result of the sort of flooding referred to.
	Will the Secretary of State offer some assurance that simply handing over ownership to a third party-to a water company-will not be a paper exercise, and that those companies will be able to undertake the maintenance that has not been what it should have been in recent years? I am aware of the water bill levy that is intended to pay for some of that, but will there be an imperative for maintenance, and how will it be dealt with? Will he confirm that he intends the legislation to come into force as soon as possible? Why do we have to wait until 2011? If it is going to happen, it should happen sooner rather than later, so that residents in areas such as Popley in my constituency can rest easier in their beds, without the threat of sewage flooding, which has become an all too common incident for too many of them.
	In conclusion, I shall pick up on something that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is not in his place, said in his concluding remarks. He said that the 21st century is the period of mass sustainability, and I could not agree more. That should be our watchword, and I say amen to that comment. The right hon. Gentleman was the architect of the problems of overdevelopment and excessive house building and with planning for the future that I am dealing with in my constituency. My local council in Basingstoke is grappling with many issues that were formed under his stewardship of that part of the Government, so perhaps his successor, who is now responsible for that area of Government policy, will hear the words that the right hon. Gentleman sagely uttered today and act now to ensure that future house building is environmentally sustainable not just in my constituency and the south-east, but in all our constituencies. The Government should use the Bill in the Queen's Speech to underline to people not just on the outside but on their own side that environmental sustainability has to be the name of the game.

John Mann: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will continue with my speech.
	"We all know," said a Conservative Front Bencher, "that coal-fired power stations are to close." Well, actually, we do not all know that. When will that happen? What is the time scale? It shows the vagueness that has slipped in and become major statements. I happen to have two coal-fired power stations in my constituency, and nobody has told the company that runs them that the power stations will be closing. Indeed, it has just invested many tens of millions of pounds in technology to green the stations, and it has done so with Government support. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that we all know that coal-fired power stations will be closing-not in my constituency. They will not be closing, those jobs will not be going and that energy will be required. Such statements show the shoddiness of the debate.
	If we were to ask, "In 30, 40, 50 years' time, what power stations should there be, and what do we want to see there?", we would rightly recognise that the new gas-fired power stations being built alongside existing stations are an interim stage. There will be stages beyond that. However, a party, presuming that it will be in power, suggests that it is going to close down coal-fired power stations. No, it is not, and if it is, it should give us the time scale, because my constituents, as producers and consumers of that energy, will want to know when they are going to close. The Government encouraged new and wise investments in flue gas desulphurisation units, and EDF and the power stations put up the money. Those units green the use of coal in order to create power, and they have a long life span, which is precisely why I and my local community welcome that investment.
	However, that does not mean that I agree with the consensus, but I have heard a little bit of consensus. The Government are in favour of wind farms and the Opposition are in favour of wind farms, so there will be wind farms everywhere. Well, I am no nimby: there is a power station, literally, in my backyard. I look out my window and see and admire it every time that I am at home. There is a second one just down the road, a gas-fired power station is being built alongside a massive one and doubtless there will be more in the future. We are not nimbys, but we are not going to be surrounded by windmills on one side and power stations on the other, so those windmills can go where the wind don't blow, as far as I and most of my constituents are concerned.
	We are not having anything anywhere, and that consideration must be part of the process. Those of us who have power stations in our backyards have a right to say that we are not having more in front of us than we have behind us, or, in some householders' cases, more behind them than they have in front of them. It depends which way we look at these things. That is a critical factor. When we scrutinise the legislation, I want to ensure that there is no sneaky way something can be imposed on us. I will not vote for anything that can impose windmills on us when we have the power stations already. Far more windmills should be put out where the wind does blow-out at sea-as the Danes and others have learned. That is where the majority of wind farms should go. I think that we will see more resistance to the indiscriminate location of something that makes a tiny contribution to the energy supply, but undermines the concept of environmentalism for my constituents and others. That is an important consideration.
	I heard the Secretary of State dismiss, perhaps unwisely, the notion that there should be amendments to his Bill. It behoves Secretaries of State, particularly young ones with ambitions for the future, to listen not only to the Opposition but to the country and to their own Back Benchers. I am pleased to see that three Ministers-there were five a moment ago-are in their place taking notes of the points that I am making. There is a series of potential amendments that would improve the Government's performance on the environment. Let us not have too much rigidity on wind farms. In Germany-I think the figures are two-years-old-14 per cent. of households have solar energy. That is extraordinary. Based on my occasional visits there, Germany is no warmer than my constituency or the rest of Britain-it is about the same. If the Germans can have 14 per cent., we can have more. We can manufacture that sort of technology in this country, thereby creating manufacturing jobs. I am bewildered as to why we allow new house building without insisting that it should get preferential planning consent-not in any area, but in appropriate areas-if such technologies were built into it. We are making a major error by failing to encourage solar panels and other such technologies in all new buildings-we should be incentivising that in a big way.
	I would go a stage further. How do we sell to retired miners who are only just giving up their solid fuel fires-some have still not done so-the concept of alternative green technologies? I could do that in any of the homes in my constituency; they are often little bungalows. The way to do it is to stick in a solar panel for free and give those people free hot water. The retired miners who dug the coal in my constituency would be rather pleased to have free hot water. It might not be on every day of the year-the experts can tell me that-but for most of the year they would get free hot water, and as the technology developed they would get more than that.
	To me, that is common sense, so why are we not doing it? We could be giving young people apprenticeships in these new manufacturing technologies so that we are the leader, pump-priming in the way that the Americans long ago learned to use contract compliance, not least with the armed services, to pump-prime manufacturing and new technologies. We should be doing the same. That would be a more complex amendment, but the principle is simple-to get our manufacturing industry going with products that the public will see as common sense and as things that matter in everyday life. None of my constituents would turn down free hot water-not one. That is where we should be taking these policies. If we cannot manage to do that by amending the Bill, perhaps the opportunity will come with next year's Budget, if not the pre-Budget report.
	I was perplexed by the consensus between those on the Front Benches on communal heating. The Secretary of State was a little equivocal, but the Conservative spokesman was absolutely certain. The Conservatives back district heating systems, just as the Soviets did when they pioneered communal heating systems and built them across the Soviet empire. That was how people had to live. They were told, "Here's your heating-you will have it. If it's too hot, you'll open the window, and if it's too cold you'll put a coat on." We now find, in local authority areas such as mine, these cranky old boilers that are years out of date and pump out the heating, not very efficiently. I know a little bit of physics. Some people like the extra heat, but others do not, and with a centralised system, there is nothing they can do other than open the windows. The heat pours out, and they get the bill. They come to me and say, "This is stupid. Look at our bill-it's far more than anybody else's. It's bad for the environment and bad for my pocket-I'm paying for something I don't want." There is an opportunity to move away from the Soviet structures so beloved by the new Conservative party, as articulated this afternoon-much to the horror of one or two of its Back Benchers, as I can see from their facial expressions. I encourage them to sort out their Front Benchers on this issue. These Soviet systems are not efficient for the environment or for the consumer, so let us change them. That could be done easily and immediately, with a few extra bits of pump-priming of the economy as new boilers and systems had to be installed by local suppliers.
	I am surprised that that the issue of mushroom farm composting is missing from the Queen's Speech. In the villages of Misson, Harwell and Everton, the biggest single emissions are those from the Tunnel Tech mushroom composting factory. No one else would know about that-apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has Bawtry, which is also affected, in her constituency. There is only one such area in Britain. Following my interventions, we have managed to get some regulations on this, and I believe that the Secretary of State has indicated that there will be more over the winter.
	Action is needed to end this scandal. It is a classic example of what happens when we devolve power to the lowest level. This place is full of former councillors who love everything being devolved to the local level. The problem is that we have these tiny district councils because no one has bitten the bullet and brought in good-sized unitary authorities, which we should have across the country, including in my area, saving the taxpayer at least £200 a year on a band D property. If we had that system, my authority would have the ability and money happily to take on Tunnel Tech in court but, having lost £8 million in the Icelandic banks debacle through its bad financial management, it is too terrified to take anybody to court about anything, so Tunnel Tech gets away with it. This little authority is up against the big multinational, and it is terrified. The problem needs to be resolved, whether through regulation or the wise counsel of the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers. I do not suggest an entire Bill on mushroom composting because, important though it is, it is perhaps not the highest priority for the country at the current time-although it certainly is for those 1,000 residents. I am looking for even more support from the Secretary of State. I congratulate him on his diligence in working on this over the past year, but we will need a final push to sort out the problem once and for all.
	The House will be pleased to know that for the sake of brevity I will not say too much about the issue of Warm Front, which I have raised over the past five years with the Secretary of State, his team, and his predecessors. Suffice it to say that the scandal of Warm Front contracts undermines, once again, the confidence of constituents such as mine in the whole concept of environmentalism. In theory, it is a brilliant scheme; in practice, half of it is a brilliant scheme, but the other half is racked with labour costs. I had a case this week, with constituents being charged £4,500 to put in one boiler and two radiators. I can get tradesmen and tradeswomen to do that for £900 or £1,000. My constituents expected to pay £1,000 of that £4,500. We will ensure that they do not, but the taxpayer is still paying £3,500 for that simple little job. The scheme needs to be properly tightened up. I suspect that a Warm Front Bill will not emerge from amendments that I attempt to introduce, but it remains a very important issue.

Tim Farron: That is a fair intervention, and I agree that there is a lot wrong with the Bill. It is inadequate in many respects, but it is on the table and it is significantly better than nothing. We will scrutinise it throughout its progress through this House, but we believe that it will be better for my constituents, for his and for the whole country if we end this Parliament with a Flood and Water Management Bill on the statute book. I hope that it will be better than the one in front of us at the moment.
	I shall give some reasons why the Bill would be a positive step. The presence of a single co-ordinating body across the country-it makes sense for that to be the Environment Agency-will be a huge improvement. There is far too much confusion and buck passing, and not enough backside kicking, when it comes to preventing flooding from happening and dealing with it when it happens. One area of my constituency that thankfully did not flood this time round is Grange-over-Sands, although it often does flood in the Windermere road area. Fixing that problem is a nightmare, when the Environment Agency, local authorities, United Utilities, Network Rail and others all pass the buck to each other, no doubt because solving it would cost money. I want to see a single entity that has the power, the authority and the resources to knock heads together and ensure that we solve such problems. That single co-ordinating body should have the muscle and the inclination to tackle such problems. I observed this morning that Severn Trent Water was celebrating-or perhaps apologising for-record profits. I think of the record profits that United Utilities and other water companies have been, shall we say, fortunate to amass, thanks to an infrastructure paid for by the taxpayer-an infrastructure that is also elderly, but which they have been far too complacent about.
	Again, it was an irony-or a coincidence; I do not know-but six days before the catastrophic floods last week, I was in Burneside with representatives of United Utilities and the Environment Agency, at the epicentre of the floods there. We were trying to deal with flooding that happens just about every fortnight, never mind once in a thousand years-flooding at a lower level in Burneside, but nevertheless at an appalling level, because it involves foul sewage as well as everything else. The response of United Utilities was, "We know what the problem is. The problem is that the Kendal and Burneside drainage system is inadequate, but it is a low priority to us." The Environment Agency representatives stood there and sort of nodded. However, I do not want the Environment Agency to stand next to United Utilities; I want it to apply shoe leather up backsides to ensure that those things get sorted out. The complacency of the water companies was shown up for what it was just six days later, when the residents in that area had to deal with the devastation.
	I also welcome the elevated role of local authorities, as a potential consequence of the Flood and Water Management Bill. It is right that they should have single responsibility for the local flood risk strategy, but they must also have the resources to do that job. One of the other success stories, as it were, in our area that we would like to talk about is that in Kendal, even with a deluge, say, a quarter of the size of the one that we have experienced in the past few days, the Sedbergh road area would have been flooded and about 250 homes would have been under water. Indeed, with that particular deluge, I suspect that we would have had 500 to 700 properties under water. However, that area of Kendal did not flood because two years ago the local district council built the Stock beck flood relief system, which has worked, even in this most dramatic of situations. That came about after I chaired a meeting of about 11 different agencies, sitting them round a table at the Castle Park primary school. It is wonderful what getting people sitting round a primary school table on those low chairs with their knees underneath their chins can do to, let us say, interfere with their dignity and ensure that they address the issues. We banged heads together and ensured that a successful flood relief scheme was built.
	However, I do not want to go through the same process every time. I want local authorities to have the power to make things happen, but money is power, and they have to have the necessary resources. If the resources do not follow those powers, they will be absolutely pointless.
	I look back on the experience of my constituents last week. I talked to the Environment Agency earlier today about early warning. I appreciate that it has done a tremendous job these past few days and deserves praise for its work. Indeed, it has improved the standard of the warnings going out to people, but many of my constituents either did not receive text message warnings at all, if they were on Aynam road, Lound road or any of the streets off those roads in Kendal, or, in the case of Burneside, they received a text message six hours after their homes had flooded. I understand that that is all down to mobile communications and so on, but frankly we have to look at the issue in future, because that is not a good enough excuse.
	Also, although the generalised flood warnings put out by the Environment Agency were excellent, timely and accurate, we now have the know-how, particularly in the national flood forecast centre, to give specific targeted warnings to homes and businesses well in advance to allow them to take the necessary precautions, move furniture upstairs, evacuate if need be or sandbag themselves in to ensure that they do not get flooded at all.
	I am also concerned that the warnings are given only when homes or businesses are at risk of flooding because of rivers bursting their banks, because the majority of the homes flooded in my constituency were flooded because of surface water and ground water. All those things are just as predictable-or potentially predictable, using different models-but at the moment they are not in the Environment Agency's remit. That is wrong. I want to ensure that the Bill makes provision to put that in law, although they are things that can also be fixed without legislation. I would like the Secretary of State to take steps towards addressing that right away, because we have the know-how to sort it out.
	As other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned this evening, we also need to be able to strengthen the hand of local authorities to say no to development on flood plains and in other flood-risk areas. I am absolutely committed to developing new, affordable homes for local families, particularly in my area. It is a tragedy that we have a waiting list of 5,000 people for council homes in social rented properties, but only 4,000 social rented homes available. I will not go into why that might be, but we all know the reasons why-the failed policies of the past, shall we say? That is a tragedy, so I want more social rented and other affordable homes built as an urgent priority. However, I do not want the families who get those homes to be subject to almost instant misery because the houses have been built in areas where we will be dealing with flood risk year after year. We surely have the capacity to deal with that in this day and age.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) talked about the names of places where such developments have been built, perhaps giving away the fact that they should not have been built. My previous home in Milnthorpe, before we moved to our current house, was built in a place called Grisleymire lane, which once won a prize on "Nationwide" in the '70s for having the quirkiest name in the north-west. We were never flooded, but perhaps that is another story-it was probably because the Kent silted up.
	I have two more quick points to make arising from my experience these past few days. My great concern is that residents and businesses will have their insurance premiums hiked up or their excesses increased to the extent that, in reality, they will become uninsurable. We need to put pressure on the insurance companies, now and in future, to ensure that that does not happen and we do not allow people to become effectively uninsurable. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly pointed out earlier that there is a principle of shared risk, and that must continue. If it does not, the whole principle of insurance is blown away.
	I am also experiencing problems with residents, particularly in Burneside, where private landlords are refusing to take the action that they need to take, on the electrics and so on, to make homes habitable. Where homes belong to local social landlords, for example, it is much easier to take action. I want there to be provision for private landlords to be forced to take action to make homes habitable and to take reasonable steps to prevent future flooding.
	I mentioned earlier that those areas in my constituency that have been under most pressure, at least in the past couple of days, are, as it were, the business centres of the south lakes area, particularly in Bowness, Windermere and Ambleside. It is worth pointing out that the tourism economy in Cumbria is worth £1.5 billion a year. To the Exchequer, therefore, it is worth some £500 million a year. I spoke to a businessman friend of mine in Grange-over-Sands last night who told me that his takings in the past week had gone down by 90 per cent.-and that is in a town that has not flooded-because the general message being put about out there was that the Lake district and Cumbria are closed for business. I want to take this opportunity to say that we are not.
	If the Government are coming up with money-I would encourage them to come up with yet more funds to support us in this endeavour-they could spend that money successfully and profitably by investing it in the marketing and development of the Lake district and Cumbria brand over the next few weeks. Cumbria Tourism has an annual budget of just £1 million per year-annual budgets tend to be per year. That is clearly inadequate, full stop, but it is absolutely inadequate for trying to rebuild the reputation of a part of our country whose economy has been enormously damaged by the devastation of the past few days. We need to be able to sell our communities and our tourism product, especially in the run-up to Christmas, and we would appreciate some financial support in order to do that. The Exchequer would get more than its money's worth if it were to invest £10 million or £20 million in marketing for Cumbria, because of the benefit to the Exchequer of tourism.
	I also want to emphasise the importance of the uplands. One of the reasons that Kendal did not flood more seriously than it did was the work of the upland farmers in the Kentmere valley. We need to look at the role of the uplands in the retention and storage of flood waters. We have the fastest falling water in the country. The source of the river Kent is only about 15 miles away from the sea, and it can fall extremely rapidly, as we have seen in the past few days. It falls rapidly at the best of times.
	We need to invest in the work that upland farmers do to disperse and contain the waters in the uplands. They have done more than almost anyone else to protect our towns and villages in Cumbria from flooding, yet they are an endangered species. Only two weeks ago, Natural England released a report entitled "Vital uplands: Natural England's vision for the upland environment in 2060". The reality is, however, that hill farming could be dead by 2020 if we do not act soon. The average income for a hill farm is £5,000 a year, and the average age of a hill farmer is 59. You do not need to be a genius to work out that that income base makes it unlikely that the profession will continue for much longer, yet the economic, environmental and social value of those people in Cumbria is immense, and we need to support them and pay them for the work that they do.
	I pay tribute to the emergency services-the police, the fire and ambulance services, the bay search and rescue and mountain rescue teams, the coastguards, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and all the others who have made such immense efforts over the past few days. It is important to point out that many of those agencies are voluntary in nature. In particular, the equipment and vehicles that the mountain rescue service has been using to save lives and protect and rescue people over the past few days will have been paid for by voluntary donations. The service also has to pay VAT on those donations, and pays vehicle excise duty. Across England and Wales, however, the cost to those volunteer mountain rescue teams is less than £200,000 a year. If I could ask the Secretary of State for one additional thing-it would not require any legislation-it would be to reimburse the mountain rescue teams that relative pittance of £200,000. So far, the Treasury has refused to do that, but it would represent an immense vote of confidence and be seen as a thank you to the communities of Cumbria that are struggling so manfully at this time.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate on energy and climate change. These subjects are particularly important as we approach the Copenhagen summit. If we needed any reminder that Governments must act to tackle climate change, surely witnessing the events of the past week in Cumbria will confirm that. I want to join other hon. Members in expressing my sympathy for the constituents of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and the other people of Cumbria for what they have suffered in the past week. I also want to pay tribute to them for the fortitude with which they are tackling the clean-up operation.
	I am fortunate in having a number of projects in Durham that are seeking to remind people not only about climate change but about the ways in which all communities can begin to take action to tackle it. Last Friday, I attended an event in Durham organised by Professors Lena Dominelli and Phil Gilmartin and other staff from the energy institute at Durham university. That is an important institute, which receives funding from the Government and other bodies to develop new green technology and to seek ways in which that technology can be applied in the energy sector. The institute is therefore very important for the future development of green jobs in the north-east region and in the country as a whole. It also does significant work to transfer technology overseas.
	We are extremely lucky to have the institute in Durham. I am particularly pleased that its academic staff are taking time out of their busy schedules to work with local businesses and community groups to make them aware of the measures that are readily available to be used in homes to reduce energy use and to save money. The response from members of the local community to the measures described and made available to them was really positive.
	That backs up the recent poll that was carried out for the Department for Energy and Climate Change, which found that, once the issues had been explained carefully, 74 per cent. of people would take immediate action to change their lifestyles if they knew that that action would affect their children's or grandchildren's lives. We have not always made the case for bringing climate change down to the individual level or for making it absolutely clear to individuals and communities what action can be taken in the home to help the Government and others to tackle climate change. I also want to pay tribute to Climate Durham, an umbrella organisation in my constituency that seeks to raise public awareness about climate change, and to make the link between the global issue and local and individual actions.
	I am also pleased that Government projects are supporting technological development, and we need to do much more of that. If we are to have the necessary energy and renewable energy sources for the future, we must keep investing in the technology. I am pleased that the north-east has recently received public investment not only to develop wind turbines and, critically, wind turbine manufacturing, but to extend the use of solar energy and further to develop photovoltaic cells.
	The Government, as well as other bodies, have also supported an interesting project in Teesside involving a feasibility study to see whether household waste could be converted into an energy source. Just now, we are awaiting news about whether the expansion of carbon capture and storage will be extended to the north-east. Of course, I make a special plea for that to happen. Several Members have spoken today of the need for CCS. We know that we are going to continue to use coal as an energy source in this country and elsewhere for some time into the future, and it is therefore important that we have carbon capture and storage measures in place to make coal a much greener energy source.
	I particularly welcome the Energy Bill in the Gracious Speech and it is important for it to get through the parliamentary process in time. I am also pleased that there are measures in the Energy Bill further to tackle fuel poverty. The Government have done much-they have gained little credit for it today-to reduce energy use through better insulation, which has been achieved through a number of measures. The obligation on energy suppliers, CERT-the carbon emissions reduction target-has helped insulate about 6 million homes already, and the scheme is being extended until 2012.
	Warm Front, which has received some criticism in the Chamber today, has carried out extensive work in my constituency. The number of households that have already been assisted is 4,691, with a further 991 households receiving help with heating. The total value of that work is almost £4 million, which in the main has been money well spent. A number of my constituents have been very pleased to receive extra insulation as well as, in some cases, a replacement boiler.
	Warm Front is also carrying out a project on income maximisation, ensuring that people on low incomes get all the benefits to which they are entitled. I am pleased that the scheme operates in my constituency. Nationally, 2 million homes have been helped through Warm Front. A number of homes have also been updated with insulation and new boilers through the implementation of the Government's decent homes standard-again, not much mentioned today. In total, a very large number of homes have already been helped to reduce their energy costs through better insulation. I accept, however, that a lot more needs to be done.
	I hope that the Government will achieve the goal of carbon-neutral buildings very much in advance of their 2016 target for homes and their 2019 target for commercial premises. What we know about global warming and climate change presses us to take action to bring about carbon-neutral or carbon-zero homes and premises much in advance of those dates.
	I am pleased that £10 million has been set aside for the low-carbon communities programme and the low-carbon communities challenge. I am certainly pressing my local authority to put in a bid in partnership with our local communities for a slice of that fund. It is important to seek ways whereby local communities can really look at what works best in the local area in producing more sustainable communities. Although he is not in his place at the moment, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for saying that sustainability is the key issue for this century. I hope that the Government will continue to press forward on all issues relating to sustainable communities.
	It is really important that the public sector takes the lead in promoting and adopting measures to reduce climate change, but in fairness, the private sector has a huge role to play, too. I would like the private sector to do much more to bring about a reduction in energy costs for my constituents and to produce exemplars of carbon-neutral buildings. We just have not seen enough of them. In that regard, we should press the private sector as well as the public sector.
	I want to say a few brief words about Copenhagen. The press reports about it have been quite pessimistic, but I hope that other countries will follow the Prime Minister's lead not only in attending Copenhagen, but in actively pursuing a new global deal on reducing carbon emissions. This really is the key issue of our time.
	While I am on my feet, let me briefly speak about a few other measures in the Gracious Speech that I believe are worthy of mention. I am very pleased that the Government are at last considering the difficult issue of social care and are seeking to bring forward the personal care at home Bill. That will mean that, from October, more than 275,000 of those with the greatest needs will be protected from charges and top-up fees for care in their own homes. I hope that everyone will get behind that measure.
	I am also pleased that we are getting to the final stages of the Equality Bill and it looks as though it might manage to get through the parliamentary process. It will introduce a new public sector duty to narrow the gap between rich and poor. It is a radical measure, and I find it disappointing that the policy that it represents has received so little attention from the media. It is critically important, because it makes clear that we will be serious about reducing inequality. It will also ban age discrimination outside the work force, and will introduce reporting on gender pay in the case of large employers.
	The agency workers regulations will ensure that agency workers are given treatment equal to that given to permanent staff when they have been employed for 12 weeks. The Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill will implement in United Kingdom law the convention on cluster munitions, which bans the use, development, production, stockpiling, retention and transfer of cluster munitions.
	I could go on, but what I am trying to make clear is that the Gracious Speech contains a number of measures that are genuinely necessary. I find it very disappointing that Opposition Members have described a number of those measures as a waste of time. I cannot see how legislation to fund care for the elderly, tackle fuel poverty, deal with child poverty and ban cluster munitions-let alone further measures to regulate the banks-can be a waste of time, and it is truly astonishing that it should be described as such.
	I am also dismayed by the fact that some Opposition Members could do anything but accept that the Flood and Water Management Bill is absolutely necessary. Last Wednesday my Durham constituency was almost flooded following a very serious series of floods in July. I believe that my constituents would be astonished that so many Members have said-possibly outside the Chamber-that the Bill is not necessary. I know that Northumbrian Water has done a huge amount to reduce the incidence of flooding in my constituency, but more needs to be done, particularly in co-ordinating measures to prevent and deal with floods. I am therefore very pleased that the Bill was included in the Gracious Speech.
	I was-again-astonished to hear some Opposition Members say that they hoped that some of the Bills would be blocked in the House of Lords. I think that that is absolutely dreadful: apart from anything else, it undermines our democratic mandate. I hope that all Members will back the important measures in the Gracious Speech.

Hugo Swire: I shall be astonished if some of these rehashed announcements and Bills go anywhere in the time left to the Government. In fact, I share the astonishment expressed by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), but it is not astonishment about the cynicism of the Opposition; it is astonishment about what was not in the Queen's Speech.
	I find myself-unusually-slightly agreeing with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg). I am not at all sure that there was need for a Queen's Speech at this stage. From where I am standing, and from the viewpoint of the part of south-west England that I represent, there seems to be little in the speech that relates to us. It is not surprising that, in responding to a recent ICM poll, a sizeable majority-66 per cent.-said that the Government cared more about issues affecting urban people than about those affecting people in the countryside. Everything that I have seen in the Queen's Speech only goes to support that. Given the number of vegans on the Government Front Bench, I suppose I should be grateful that Devon's cow population did not come in for an attack on carbon emissions.
	I should say in all fairness that, in the run-up to Copenhagen and following the recent tragic events in Cumbria, it is right in a sense that we have concentrated on flooding and flood prevention. However, the debate has been interesting in other respects. In my view, the best contribution so far-I say this in a non-partisan way-has come from a former Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). He talked of energy security, which is or should be of real concern to us all. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could let us know when the right hon. Gentleman's report to the Prime Minister will be available to us and whether there will be a copy in the Library; indeed, whether there will be an opportunity to debate what I believe to be an extremely serious issue.
	The Government have had 12 years-it is difficult to believe some times-to deal with energy security. We have heard that France, by law, must have 125 days' worth of gas holdings. We have less than 15 days. Germany has 99 days; last year we were down to as little as four days. That is irresponsible and clearly unacceptable.
	We have heard about the energy deficit. Even if we pressed the start button tomorrow, no nuclear power station could be built until 2017. Yet I believe that the Government are not doing enough to explore the finite resources-they are still there but are more difficult to get at now-in the North sea. I would welcome the Secretary of State's comments about whether the encouragement given to drilling companies to explore in the North sea is going as it should be.
	We heard about alternative energy and tidal wave power. There is a very good project in Plymouth financed by the South West of England Regional Development Agency to have a tidal wave power machine put off Hayle in Cornwall. It has not happened yet and it is a wonderful and exciting piece of technology, but we should not be relying on a piece of technology that remains unproven.
	We have heard about offshore wind farms. I am very keen on offshore wind farms but I remind the Secretary of State that we have just had the Marine Bill. In Committee I asked how we brought onshore the energy generated by tidal wave power. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) mentioned judicial review in terms of the new generation of nuclear power stations. I think there will be judicial review every single time we try to extend the national grid and bring in these wires to highly sensitive areas.
	It is clear that the UK is still lagging behind in the use of alternative technologies. We do not have enough electric charging points, particularly in the capital city. We are lagging well behind Japan and the US in investing in new green technologies. We should be doing more to deal with battery disposal.
	I urge the Secretary of State to go the United Arab Emirates, if he has not done so; I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party group. In Masdar, they are seeking to create the first carbon-neutral city and to attract other high technology industries there. They are doing some incredibly good work from which we could learn.
	I do not want to detain the House as others want to get in, but I want to talk about fuel poverty and flooding. On the Energy Bill, the Government have said that they will give a greater amount of help to the poorest and most vulnerable. But they said already that they would end fuel poverty by 2016. How will they reach that target given that nearly one in four households-16,000 households-in East Devon is currently in fuel poverty? The Government's current schemes give very little help to rural areas. The community energy saving programme has very few designated areas that are in rural England because fuel poverty is so dispersed in rural areas. It is dispersed and disguised and we need to do more about that.
	On flooding, it is heart-wrenching to hear the reports from Cumbria. I can empathise somewhat; we have had similar problems in my part of the world. Indeed, on the river Dart we had the tragic death recently of the canoeist Chris Wheeler, to whose family I send my condolences. I welcome the Flood and Water Management Bill. The draft Bill needs some attention and there are some things in it that we need to debate and change but it is timely; indeed it is overdue. I was with the Environment Agency a few days ago in Devon where we were looking at maintaining banks. Its representatives were telling me about how it was encouraging farmers and landowners to undertake deeper ploughing-another practice that has gone by the wayside in recent years-in order to try and hold deeper water. Whatever happens, there will be a trade-off between the farmers, the landowners and the EA, because we cannot just flood huge areas without compensation and discussion; that needs to take place if things are to work at all.
	The south-west has the second highest number of properties at significant risk of flooding, with 86,000 under threat. I agree with the chairman of the EA, Lord Smith, who said:
	"More people have lost their lives from flooding than have from terrorism in England."
	We therefore must take flooding extremely seriously.
	The emergency services have done excellent work in the last few days, and I pay tribute to them; they do a magnificent job time and again. I am, however, concerned about preventive aspects in relation to flooding, the co-ordination of different Departments, and the amount of money that is spent in different areas. We have heard today, in a completely non-political way from Members on both sides of the House, of the continuing concern about England being concreted over. In my part of the world, there is concern about the proposed new development of Cranbrook near Rockbeare, as that will arguably be built near, or adjacent to, a floodplain. It may not have flooded for many years, but given the way the climate is changing and its unpredictability, is it wise, as part of a regional spatial strategy-something we are committed to getting rid of-to build a brand-new town if there is any question of it being subjected to flooding at any time?
	We are miles behind other countries in terms of the housing we build. In the low countries, such as the Netherlands, houses on stilts and houses that can float are being built. It is difficult to believe that we might need to look at what other countries are doing, but we clearly do. I would welcome hearing the Secretary of State's views on how far we will need to go down that road to address not the problems of today, but the unpredictable problems of tomorrow.
	I shall end by making a plea on behalf of my part of the world. This ties in with climate change, and trying to get people around the place in an environmentally sustainable way, and trying to get the local economy going. If I had sufficient time, I would like to address many of the myriad other issues that plague those of us who live in rural areas, but I shall, for now, make a plea about Devon's roads. We have a lot of them: we in Devon have 8,000 miles of roads to maintain-3,000 more miles than any other authority. It is a huge road network. We beat the Liberal Democrats to win Devon county council in the local elections in May. In the run-up to the election, the Liberal Democrats pledged £2 million to fill potholes, but nobody will be surprised to learn that when the Tories won and looked at the books, we found that there was absolutely no provision at all for spending money on filling in the potholes. This is a huge issue for Devon's economy. Almost 8,000 miles of roads are enormously vulnerable to environmental change. They are vulnerable to flooding, for example, as they get washed away on a regular basis. I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind Devon's special situation when it comes to the maintenance and repair of our vital infrastructure.
	I welcome certain measures in the Queen's Speech, although some of them have been announced before. However, if we take out flooding, there is very little for the rural communities, who have felt abandoned for so long by this Government. That is the case even in respect of the Bill on communications. At first sight, it looks as though it is legislation
	"to ensure communications infrastructure that is fit for the digital age".
	Some of us thought that might mean that we would finally get broadband access in remote and rural areas, but it transpires that this is in fact a new enthusiasm of Lord Mandelson that is more to do with copyright protection than extending and rolling out the broadband network, which was promised years ago by Tony Blair, but which has not materialised in many areas.
	Tonight should be about Copenhagen and about flooding, however. Again, I express my sympathies to the people of Cumbria, but please let us not forget that we in Devon have tremendous problems ahead of us, and we need a Government who are prepared to support us.

Chris McCafferty: I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did apprise the Speaker of my being unavoidably detained by a Minister of the Crown.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, unfortunately, is not in his place, talked about the centrality of social justice and sustainability to the debate in Copenhagen. He was right to do so, and I intend to talk a little more about those issues. It has taken a long time for us to recognise that local decisions have a global impact, but it has become impossible to ignore the reality. Humans have always changed and been changed by the natural world, but the prospects for human development now depend on our wisdom in managing that relationship.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said-unfortunately, he is not in his place either-one of the key factors will be population. I think he might have said that that is the elephant in the room-well, I like elephants! The global human population has more than doubled since 1960, with the growth mostly taking place in the poorer countries, but consumption expenditure has more than doubled since 1970, with the increases mostly occurring in the richer countries. During this time, we have created unimaginable wealth, yet half the world still exists on less than $2 a day.
	Population and the environment are closely related, but the links between them are complex and varied, and they depend on specific circumstances. The key policy questions must be how to use available resources of land, energy and water to produce food and shelter for all, how to promote economic development and end poverty so that everyone can afford to eat and, in doing so, how to address the human and environmental consequences of industrialisation, energy consumption and the loss of biodiversity.
	Understanding the ways in which population and the environment are linked means examining not only how affluence, consumption, technology and population growth interrelate, but previously ignored social concerns such as gender roles and relations, political structures and governance at all levels. The relationship between the environment, population and social development is now much better understood and there is broad agreement on the means and the ends. The Copenhagen summit is our opportunity to implement those means and to achieve the ends. Achieving equal status between men and women, guaranteeing the right to reproductive health, and ensuring that individuals and couples can make their own choices about family size will also help to slow population growth rates and reduce the future size of the world population through choice. When given choice, women tend to have fewer children than their mothers did; they want more for their children, but not necessarily more children.
	Among other things, slower population growth in developing countries will contribute measurably towards relieving environmental stress and promote sustainable development. I do not believe that there can be sustainable development unless women are in charge of their own fertility. The programme of action of the 1994 international conference on population and development was agreed by 179 countries and there was a consensus that there should be universal access to reproductive health by 2015. Last year, the United Nations finally agreed that that should be a new millennium development goal target under MDG 5, which relates to maternal health. We are so far adrift on that MDG that the Prime Minister has said that we are not likely to achieve it until 2165 at the present rate.
	Changes in the size, rate of growth and distribution of human populations have an enormous impact on the environment and on development prospects. We know that people and human activity are altering the planet on an unprecedented scale. More people are using more resources with more intensity and leaving bigger footprints on the earth than ever before. That is borne out by statistics that 10 years ago were just a matter for conjecture.
	We have increasingly seen hurricanes, landslides and floodwaters. I want to add my expressions of sympathy to the people of Cumbria. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) talked about how difficult it is to imagine the devastation that floodwaters bring. Unless one has seen it, it is inconceivable. I know that because we have suffered immense flood trauma over many years in my constituency. I want to thank our Government for investing £40 million in five phases of the flood defence work in the upper Calder valley that has made an immeasurable difference to the people who live there. It is not just about homes, but about jobs. In a semi-rural area such as mine, we cannot afford to lose one job. When companies are constantly flooded, they think twice about whether they want to remain and to keep investing in the local area. I am very grateful for that investment and I have to say that every time there are flood warnings, we hold our breath. This time, we held our breath and the flood defence system worked. Not one single home has been flooded.
	I also want to congratulate the Government on making it possible for the Environment Agency to do riparian work on the banks of rivers where it was unable to do so in the past. Of course, absentee or unknown owners meant that riverbanks were not reconstructed, and that just added to the dilemma. That was certainly the case in my constituency, where there is a confluence of two rivers and a canal to boot, as well as some very steep-sided hills. Now that the Environment Agency can search out those landlords and retro-charge them, that is making a big and important difference in my area.
	We know that wet areas are becoming much wetter and dry areas are becoming dryer. El Niño and the Asian monsoon are becoming more extreme and unpredictable. Inevitably, areas that are already affected by famine will be growing less food while many of the richer lands will grow more. Many continental coastlines are also at risk and contain much larger populations. These regions are already home to half of the world's population and they have population growth rates that are double the global average.
	It is very clear that the activities of the 20th century have set us on a collision course with the environment. We now have to decide what we can and what we must do about it. The British are well known for our ingenuity, which has got us a long way in the past. I welcome the Government's thinking out of the box on climate change, especially with the low-carbon transition plan. We need to concentrate on how we can apply that ingenuity in the future so as to ensure the well-being of human populations while still protecting the natural world. How can we protect and promote fundamental values such as the right to health and human dignity while providing for sustainable development at the same time? We know that sustainable development is based on a balance between the three pillars of economic development, social development and environmental protection. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said earlier, development cannot be sustainable without social justice.
	While the rich 20 per cent. of the world's population consume 80 per cent. of the world's resources at a completely unsustainable rate, some 3 billion people struggle to survive on less than $2 dollars a day without adequate access to education, health care, food, water, sanitation, shelter, decent employment or, as we heard earlier, clean energy sources-or, ultimately, to a liveable environment. Poverty must be acknowledged as a serious threat to humanity and our planet and the fact that many children and their children will be condemned to a life of abject poverty, starvation, illiteracy and ill health is inhuman, unjust and unacceptable in the 21st century.
	Finally, it is widely acknowledged that this country is a world leader in family planning and sexual and reproductive health rights. Population is definitely an issue in relation to climate change, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged in his reply to my question on 5 November. Therefore, I ask the Government to take a lead at the Copenhagen conference, as international agreements and national policies on climate change are much more likely to succeed in the long run if they take into account population dynamics, the relationships between the sexes and women's well-being and access to reproductive health services and opportunities. I hope that the Government will take advantage of their lead position in the world on these issues to do just that.

Brian Binley: I want to raise the issue of the strategic balance of our future energy policy, which I feel that we have got wrong, but I shall first pose three questions. First, does our strategy for a low-carbon economy, which places such a heavy burden on the nation, put too much emphasis on alternative energy sources to the detriment of a robust and sensible approach to fossil fuels? Secondly, has politically correct thinking forced both the EU and the Government to create a strategy incapable of achieving its built-in targets? Thirdly, will we be able to produce the energy that we need to keep the lights on and the country working?
	Those are the questions that we should ask of our future energy mix and the strategy that we are using to achieve it, so let us look at the facts. On 26 June, the Prime Minister unveiled the Government's strategy for building a low-carbon economy. It involves building 7,000 wind turbines, 4,000 on land and 3,000 offshore, by 2020. In addition, there is to be a mix of microgeneration, tidal and wave power and other forms of alternative energy.
	The strategy will be expensive. The Climate Change Act 2008 will cost Britain £18 billion a year, or £720 for every household in the country from now until 2050. That is quite a price, and it must produce a viable return. I am delighted to say that nuclear power will figure prominently in Britain's future energy mix. I welcome that, but I am deeply concerned about the role that wind power will play.
	We all know that onshore wind power is pretty universally disliked. I do not know whether that is true in the Secretary of State's constituency, but it is pretty true in most of the constituencies that I go to. More importantly, onshore wind power is the section of the strategy that many people think is unworkable. It is certainly massively expensive, and some say that it simply panders to the fashionable end of the green lobby.
	The strategy is, at heart, a built-in conflict between renewable and non-renewable energy. The balance between the two is out of kilter and needs to be reassessed quickly. Many experts have stated that we will never be able to build the 7,000 turbines by the target date. Whether we have the available construction capacity is doubtful, as is whether there is the political will to allow the challenge to be met. Even if we did manage to build the turbines-and, given the time frame, offshore turbines will be a particular problem-they will not produce the energy that we will need when we need it and at a cost that we will want to pay. We must face up to that problem.
	The second problem with regard to wind is that Britain will still require considerable conventional electricity generating back-up, as wind fluctuations mean that turbines often have spells when they produce little electricity. "Peak demand" means exactly what it says. It is no good telling industry to wait until the wind picks up. International business waits for no man and will soon go elsewhere if we fail to deliver on time.
	Is back-up a real problem? Mr. Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, has stated that we should require conventional back-up capable of producing 90 per cent. of wind turbine capacity. What is the point of that? It is like having 10 subs on the subs' bench, all of equal ability to the players on the pitch. Very few football teams can afford to do that-

Brian Binley: The Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberals consistently tries to take every opportunity to thrust his party's policy down our throat, but I have a better alternative, and I will tell him what it is in a minute.
	We have made a commitment to increase our renewables share massively, with the consequence that, with the exception of Malta and Luxembourg, we are faced with the toughest target in the whole EU. One wonders what Malta and Luxembourg have done to deserve that. It gets worse: Britain is likely to carry a disproportionate cost of meeting the EU's 2020 renewables target. Indeed, Pöyry Energy Consulting has estimated that the UK will carry between 20 and 25 per cent. of the total EU cost of meeting a Europe-wide renewables target. That works out at between £150 and £200 per household per year.
	To sum up, we probably will not be able to build the target number of wind turbines; in any case, they would not produce the energy required, and even without the much-needed back-up capacity, they would cost us all a great deal of money. No wonder industry and commerce are concerned. The lights could go out, and Britain's energy prices will be higher and less competitive. Industry and commerce will find it harder to sell their goods and services abroad.
	What should we do? First, we must not shy away from fossil fuels, but should concentrate on making them carbon-free. Secondly, we must invest in the long-term development of nuclear fusion. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has found such enthusiasm for clean coal, because I genuinely think that it is a real alternative. My concern, however, is that we are not moving quickly enough. That is the general thrust of my argument. I plead with him to find ways of moving on the whole clean coal agenda more quickly. He has a problem with wind turbines-there is no doubt about that-and we need to find a sensible replacement, which is sitting underneath our feet, and will fulfil 300 years of energy need, provided that we can create the technology in time to make it viable.
	That is where I want to end. I have a great deal of respect for the way in which the Secretary of State has changed the whole focus of our energy policy, and I believe that he is committed, as I said earlier, to the concept of clean coal. I simply urge him to put more effort, energy and resources-perhaps by shifting some of the resource that has gone into fashionable wind turbines-into developing clean coal more quickly. The payback for Britain will be considerably greater, and it is one way-just one way-in which we might escape the lights going out.

Michael Weir: I am sorry. Time is short.
	Setting the fiscal regime will be extremely important. The oil industry is very concerned about what may come out in the pre-Budget report. It urged Ministers to argue with their colleagues in the Treasury that we need a proper regime to ensure that we get the development of the area west of Shetland, where new thinking may well be necessary if development is to go ahead on a major scale.
	It became clear in the course of our report that there are serious concerns also about finance for the North sea, a point that I made in an intervention. The big companies will always get finance-it is not a problem for the likes of Shell or BP-but many of those working in the North sea are much smaller companies operating in smaller fields. Many of them are experiencing difficulty with finance, even from our state-run banks.
	We were told in the course of our investigation that of the major UK banks, only Lloyds HBOS, or whatever it now calls itself, operates in the North sea. It became clear that the bank was lending only to existing customers and was not prepared to lend to new entrants into the market. That is a serious barrier to exploiting the riches of the North sea.
	A further important point concerns the infrastructure. Much of it is ageing-it has been there a long time-and decommissioning is an issue. That may create a great deal of work, but there is also the problem of the use of that infrastructure if we are to make carbon capture and storage work. As well as getting it working in the coal stations onshore, we have to find a way of storing captured gas. The obvious place for storage is the depleted oil and gas fields and the aquifers under the North sea. To do that, we have to retain the existing structure to enable us to pump the gas out to the North sea. We must have a fiscal regime that allows the companies that are no longer using much of that structure for its original purpose to maintain it to ensure that it is available for carbon capture and storage. Again, I urge Ministers to make that important point to their Treasury colleagues.
	The Energy Bill includes much about carbon capture and storage, and Ministers have told us today that we are world leaders in it. I have talked many times in this House about the Peterhead project. It would have given us world leadership in CCS, but, because of this Government's typical dithering, we lost it, and it is no longer true to say that we are world leaders in CCS. Ministers talked about the potential to export it to developing countries, and that may well be true, but the Library has produced an interesting note on CCS. It considers what is happening in other countries and states that China has one of the world's few commercial CCS operations, at Huaneng Beijing co-generation power plant. China is, in fact, ahead of us in many ways, and, unless we move quickly and get CCS working, rather than exporting technology to developing countries, we may have to buy it in.
	We have heard a lot about people who complain about wind farms. My good friend, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), talked about that, and there are difficulties with many such sources, so we cannot assume that there will not be difficulties with CCS. A few months ago, I, along with other members of the all-party offshore oil and gas industry group, visited a CCS project run by Total in Pau, southern France. All over the surrounding countryside, there were large signs protesting against the development of CCS in that area, so that is something else to worry about and another reason to move fast, to get the work under way and to ensure that we have CCS. Only with that will we be able to develop our coal resources, create jobs by linking coal with existing North sea infrastructure and ensure that we have clean energy and do not need to rely on the disaster that is nuclear power.

Stephen Crabb: It is a privilege to participate in what has been a popular and very interesting debate. I begin by trying to strike a note of empathy and understanding with the Government Front Benchers, because the past 12 years have, indeed, thrown up a complex, dynamic and changing energy scenario to which Ministers, policy makers and regulators have had to respond. At times, the challenges have appeared extremely difficult, and the UK faces a number of specific and profound tests.
	In an excellent speech, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), described very well one of the biggest shifts in the past 12 years. He explained how the UK has moved from being largely self-sufficient in energy to being increasingly reliant on imports. I shall not rehearse all the data to which he referred, but he described them very well. I shall, instead, draw the House's attention to the change in the gas situation, because the move to import reliance has been very pronounced, and this year the UK will probably rely on imported sources for about 30 per cent. of its gas requirements. The UK relies on imported sources for about two thirds of its domestic coal requirement.
	Linked to increased import reliance is, of course, energy security, and in this country that issue has received more attention in recent years than at any time since the pre-North sea oil days. The right hon. Gentleman's speech typified how, for some, energy security has a strong geopolitical dimension: it is about Russian pipelines and the stability of fuel supplies from the Gulf region. However, I urge caution on that paradigm. The former Minister described imported gas from Norway as good, democratic, human rights gas. He did not describe what imports from Russia or Qatar would be, but the House understood the implication. I urge caution on automatically regarding as inherently unstable imported energy from any country other than a stable western European democracy.
	The House should not forget that during the deepest, darkest days of the cold war, when millions of troops and missiles faced each other across central Europe, the USSR still supplied gas for central and western Europe. In fact, Russia, formerly as the Soviet Union, has proved itself to be an extremely stable supplier of gas, notwithstanding the recent dispute with Ukraine, which has more to do with internal politics going back to pre-Soviet Union days than with Russia's wider approach to using its domestic energy resources for geopolitical gain.
	Much more immediately, energy security is about the resilience of the UK's downstream infrastructure. It is about the vulnerability that was highlighted in 2000, and at intervals since then, in supplies of refined products as a result of blockades or industrial action at oil refineries, leading to panic buying and shortages of petrol and diesel on forecourts. It is about the resilience of the supply network in the face of events such as the explosion at the Buncefield depot, although the supply network coped very well with that disastrous event. More fundamentally, it is about human error and technical failure. Keeping the lights on is as much about bringing new capacity on stream in a timely way as it is about geopolitical developments. Of course, energy security is also about how well the internal EU gas market functions. Recent cold winters have demonstrated that it does not currently function in a way that is particularly helpful for the UK. The Government should be disappointed that they have not achieved more in encouraging European counterparts to move forward faster with liberalising the gas markets.
	The most profound shift that has occurred during the past 12 years in the lifetime of these recent Labour Governments has been the emergence of the climate change agenda-a game-changing issue-and the rise of the imperative to reduce the growth of, and if possible reverse, the amount of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. That has been a major shift in the backdrop against which Ministers have had to frame policy. I empathise with and understand the challenges that Ministers have been up against, which include dealing with the drivers of energy policy, market efficiency, security of supply, climate change, and fuel poverty. Those elements do not always hang easily together, and sometimes they conflict, so coherent policy making in this environment is no easy task. However, there my sympathy with Ministers ends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said, some of the changes that we have been discussing were entirely predictable; indeed, they were predicted many years ago.
	A more purposeful and courageous Government could have made much more progress on these issues during the past 12 years. During that period, what was required was stable, coherent policy making, strong departmental leadership, and clear and predictable signals going to the marketplace and to industry. What have we had instead? We have had 15 Energy Ministers averaging a span of nine months each in office. We have had two White Papers and a huge number of consultations and reviews. We have had departmental changes, with the alphabet soup of DTI, DBERR and DECC. We have had spectacular policy U-turns, most fundamentally on new nuclear build and on whether new coal-fired power stations should be given the go-ahead without being carbon capture ready. The past 12 years have been wasted, characterised by delays, policy confusion, and the lack of courage of a Government who have at times talked the talk, with good language about the need for diversity of energy supplies and the need for a strong domestic production component.
	The fruit of those 12 years of dithering and confusion is that we are becoming more reliant than ever on imported natural gas. In his excellent speech, the former energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North, warned about over-reliance on gas. Can he not see, however, that everything that has happened in the past 12 years-the delays, U-turns and policy confusion-has helped to bring about and exacerbate that situation? I remember a debate that we had last year on a similar set of issues in which he described energy security as
	"an increasingly important aspect of national security."
	He said that he was not
	"relaxed about the national security implications"
	of growing reliance on imports and that
	"the geopolitics of energy are not reassuring...That is why we need to be bold."-[ Official Report, 22 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1461.]
	But where is the boldness? If there had been boldness, we would be much further ahead on the new nuclear programme, we would see a much more balanced portfolio of renewables in the UK energy mix, with more wave and tidal power, and we would be much further ahead as regards gas storage.
	For the past four years I have tabled written and oral questions, and I have had a Westminster Hall debate on gas storage to try to tease out where the Government's thinking was going and what a sufficient level of gas storage would be for any given level of import reliance. If we are to be 50 per cent. reliant on imported gas, what is a prudent level of gas storage? I have not been able to get clear answers. I have been trying to find out whether the Government believe that the extra storage that we need can be delivered through the marketplace and through normal price signals, or whether we need non-market intervention through a supply stocking obligation. We are no further forward on that.
	If there had been boldness in the Government's approach to energy policy, we would be much further ahead on carbon capture and storage. I read the press release that the Department for Energy and Climate Change put out on the day of the Queen's Speech, stating that the Energy Bill would put the UK "at the forefront" of CCS development and that the UK would "lead the way". The Secretary of State said today that "already" funding had been allocated to the first project. It is actually European, not Westminster, funding.
	Frankly, I rank those statements alongside those that we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about Britain leading the world out of recession. They are frankly delusional. We can look around the world and see what other countries have been doing on CCS technology. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) mentioned Total's work in Pau in France and the work in China, and we could mention what Exxon is doing in Wyoming in the USA. The Government should be far more modest and say that we need to work in partnership with other countries to bring forward CCS technology and make it commercially viable. We are in no position to say that we will be leading the way, because we will need to work in close co-operation with other countries.
	The very first parliamentary briefing note that I read after being elected in 2005 was one produced by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on CCS. It had been published in March that year, before I was elected. It stated that it had been the subject of many Government reports and would be included in the forthcoming DTI carbon abatement technology strategy. That was five years ago-it has taken that long to get the first piece of legislation on the matter. We should be much further forward.
	I would have liked to speak about the future of the UK oil refining industry, but I have already written to your office, Mr. Speaker, to request time for a debate about that. I have severe concerns about some of the pressures on the nine remaining oil refineries in the UK, but we will leave that matter for another time.

Nick Herbert: This has been a wide-ranging debate. We have heard from a number of hon. Members about the need for energy security, and we have heard differing views about how to drive towards the renewable generation of power. From the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), we heard memorably about the dangers of growing mushrooms and the loss of the world's tigers. I am still unclear about the link between those issues.
	We heard the Energy and Climate Change Secretary throw down a considerable gauntlet to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families by setting out his own five tests, none of which I can remember, but which I feel sure he will repeat. In spite of his attempt to divide our respective parties, we heard from Members in all parts of the House about the importance of securing an agreement at Copenhagen, the considerable challenge of climate change and the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the years ahead.
	Mitigating climate change is a colossal challenge for all nations, but as well as seeking to avert dangerous climate change we need to prepare for the changes in our climate that are already under way. Alongside reductions in emissions, one of the key issues at Copenhagen will be how to help developing countries adapt to climate change. I wish to focus on the three critical challenges that the reality of climate change brings, which the modest legislative programme set out in the Gracious Speech does not meet. The first is the need to adapt to a changing climate in the UK. The second is the impact that a changing climate is having and will continue to have on our natural environmental, and the role of natural systems in helping us to adapt; and the third is the global resources challenge that arises from population growth and industrialisation combining with climate change.
	First, we must face up to the need to adapt to climate change, because there is no choice between mitigation and adaptation-we have to do both. The climate change projections that the Government published last June warn of the future dangers. By the 2080s, summer temperatures in the UK could be between 3° to 4° hotter and total rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 27 per cent. Extreme weather events such as storms and droughts will be more common. Higher sea levels will bring increased coastal erosion and flooding. Some 5 million properties in England-one in six-are at risk of flooding. Torrential downpours on the scale that we saw last week in Cumbria may be exceptional, but we will see more flash floods as a result of climate change in the decades ahead. That is why it is vital that people are given the tools that they need to defend their communities, and that the Government do all they can to ensure that effective measures are in place to prevent future incidents where possible.
	Effective measures also mean passing the right legislation so that the law is clear and responsibilities for flood defence are properly demarcated. We therefore welcome the Flood and Water Management Bill, announced in the Gracious Speech. As I made clear yesterday, my party will back the necessary measures to implement the Pitt Review recommendations for flood prevention so that they become law at the earliest opportunity. I join with those hon. Members who have called for a Second Reading for that Bill as soon as possible. We would welcome that.
	The legislation must end the institutional confusion over responsibility for flood risk management and the Environment Agency needs strategic overview of all types of flooding. We are keen to ensure that this does not mean that power is taken away from local communities, or that key decisions over coastal protection are taken away from Ministers accountable to Parliament. We must ensure that the current Bill truly reflects the importance of local decision-making to effective flood prevention. We must also make sure that local communities have a strong voice in decisions over priorities for flood risk management and avoid top-down imposition.
	However, it is also vital that we address water management issues as well as flooding, because in the decades ahead, resource efficiency, and in particular, the supply and availability of water will be a key concern. By 2050, climate change could reduce the amount of water available by 10 to 15 per cent., when 20 million more people could be living in England alone. Average summer river flows could be reduced by 50 to 80 per cent. by that time. With climate change having a significant impact on supply, we will need to prepare for long dry periods, such as those in the summers of 2005 and 2006, and for potential problems with abstraction as rising temperatures reduce river flows, possibly by as much as 80 per cent. in the summer. The World Wildlife Fund has warned of the impact that this will have, for example, on our chalk streams such as the River Itchen in Hampshire, which I visited recently and which is one of WWF's "rivers on the edge"-those that are already under serious threat from over-abstraction.
	On those significant questions, the Bill is notable as much for what is not in it as for what is. The title, "Flood and Water Management" implies a greater focus on the water industry than we have in the final Bill. Later this week, Ofwat will announce the final price limits for the next five years, and we will be presented with an opportunity-a break in the regulatory cycle -to tackle some of the challenges that the industry is facing.
	Climate change and population growth will put pressure on our water supplies and will increase concerns about affordability and environmental protection. The industry must do more to conserve water itself and help incentivise water efficiency. Changes need to be made now in order to ensure a strong industry and a sustainable supply of water in the future.
	Only seven months ago, Ministers committed to bringing forward legislation to implement key measures from the Cave review of innovation in the water industry and we were also promised legislation to implement measures from the Walker review of charging and metering. The final report by the Walker review has not yet arrived, and those measures will not now happen.
	Instead of tinkering around the edges, we need innovative reform in the water industry and water policy. Such reforms do not form part of this Bill, so it will fall to the next Government to draw together all the work that has been done on industry and regulatory change to promote the conservation of water and set out real proposals for change.
	Climate change is already affecting the health and biodiversity of our natural environment, yet very little has been said about that part of the challenge today. Our biodiversity is in decline. Numbers of birds such as the cuckoo and swift have fallen significantly in recent years, while other species have been lost altogether. As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has argued in its excellent "Nature Needs a Voice" report:
	"Whilst the loss of species represents the loss of irreplaceable natural assets, declines in wildlife populations impoverish our lives well before species become biologically extinct."
	Internationally, climate change is driving biodiversity loss on a massive scale. This year's assessment of the red list of threatened species shows that more than a third of the species on the list are at serious risk. As climate change takes hold, rising temperatures will lead to fragmented habitats that will affect species population and migration.
	The Government's 2010 biodiversity targets are set to be missed, yet there is no plan for how to do better next time. Next year is a key year for international co-operation on biodiversity, with a major UN conference in Japan in October, but just setting targets will not be enough. We will need new leadership and new thinking. That means both promoting new mechanisms to value our environmental assets, if we are going to protect nature's capital, and starting to think in terms of habitat protection on a landscape scale-an approach that the National Trust is exploring.
	We must start to identify and then develop wildlife corridors to aid migration, as the wildlife trusts have advocated, instead of relying on isolated reserves. We must also start investing in protecting our ecosystem services that sustain life. That means new incentives both to encourage people and businesses to support conservation and to help local communities to invest in biodiversity through mechanisms such as conservation credits, so that new habitats can be created on the back of development. We need that new thinking because of the scale of the challenge that we face and how precious our natural environment is. As the Green Alliance rightly says, Britain's natural environment and countryside, perhaps more than those of many other nations, are an
	"integral part of Britain's heritage and identity",
	yet none of that new thinking forms part of the Gracious Speech or the proposals for legislation.
	On top of the need to adapt to climate change and protect our natural environment, we have the extra pressure of a global resources crunch caused by population growth and climate change. Professor John Beddington, the Government's chief scientific adviser, has warned of a "perfect storm" in just two decades of food shortages, scarce water and insufficient energy resources, threatening to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration, as people flee from the worst affected regions. The world's population is projected to rise from 6 billion to 9 billion by 2050, and the UN estimates that global food production will need to rise by 70 per cent. from today's levels.
	For us to have a chance to meet that huge demand, the UK must play its part. That means that it should be a strategic priority of the Government to increase domestic food production and maintain our food security, just as we need to maintain our energy security, which hon. Members in all parts of the House have spoken about today. Until recently, however, the Government's formal position was that it did not matter where our food came from. Not surprisingly therefore, the UK's self-sufficiency in indigenous food has fallen significantly in the past 10 years. We need to reverse that trend and produce more of the food that we could and should be growing ourselves.
	However, we need to do that in a sustainable way. Meeting the resources challenge in the decades ahead will mean relying on modern, productive agriculture to provide global food security. However, we cannot permit more agricultural emissions in future just because we need to grow more food. That means that we have to prioritise research and development now, in order to improve our management of soil, increase yields and cut emissions without cutting production. We should be sharing best practice and pooling expertise with other countries so that we can find solutions quickly. That is why I said last week that Britain should join the global alliance pioneered by New Zealand to focus on reducing emissions from agriculture.
	The challenges arising from climate change are serious, and none of the solutions is easy. However, if we have learned one thing from the past few years, it is that no one can live beyond their means. We cannot live beyond our economic means, but neither can we live beyond our environmental means. The resources of this planet are no more infinite than the Treasury's reserves. We must learn to use them sustainably. It is often said that the first duty of Government is to ensure the security of the people. Adapting to climate change and protecting our natural systems are the prerequisites of ensuring our environmental security. That will mean climate-proofing our policies, creating communities that are resilient to extreme weather, respecting nature's capital and investing in conservation to help wildlife to adapt. It will also mean living more sustainably by reducing waste, sourcing more food locally, generating more renewable energy and using resources efficiently.
	Although we must pursue sustainable growth in the years ahead, we must not, however, reject the idea of growth itself. Government policies, business practices and, yes, individual lifestyles will have to change, but the planet that we want to save is surely a world of prosperous, free people where wealth can be shared and opportunity is available to all. So we must be ready to promote the good that will come from making these changes, and talk less about the cost of environmental compliance and more about the opportunities of green jobs and growth. This is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has called the "good future", in which we will all enjoy and truly value the fruits of a cleaner, quieter and more beautiful environment.
	The changes that we will need to make in order to ensure our environmental security and that good future are far more profound than the few measures set out in the Gracious Speech. We have an important but limited Flood and Water Management Bill, limited energy measures and limited time. As this Government's life ebbs away, it is clear that only an election and a change of Government will bring the ambition to drive a new green agenda and secure the environmental security that is necessary.

Hilary Benn: We have had a very interesting and, at times, lively debate. It was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whom the whole House will wish to thank for his outstanding leadership, together with the Prime Minister, in trying to get that deal in Copenhagen. He was followed by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who was not so much disgusted as implausible in what he had to say. On renewables, he said that we had barely scratched the surface. Listening to him, one would never know that this country produced more electricity from offshore wind than any other nation on the planet. Listening to what he said about nuclear, one would have thought that that was the Conservatives' first resort, whereas we know that it was, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, their last resort, until we led and they had to follow.
	On carbon capture and storage, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was unable to say whether he supported the levy to fund the programme that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out. We now have a policy for no new coal without CCS. On smart meters, 48 million will be a lot to roll out by 2020; that is a huge programme. Despite prompting from many quarters, however, including from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was unable to tell the House where people would get their £6,500, given that there will apparently be no public support available for that proposal.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) gave us a tour de force, drawing on all his experience in climate negotiations. There is a lot to recommend his suggestion that the world's leaders be locked in a room until they agree on a deal. I agree with what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said about Copenhagen, and he is right that we will need a legal treaty as soon as possible after a comprehensive agreement has been reached.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) gave a very thoughtful speech that was much enjoyed across the House. I thank him for the work that he has done on energy security and for his report. I am advised that a copy of it is now available on the Department of Energy and Climate Change website.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) both raised the question of carbon capture and storage. I can tell them that we are working with other countries and trying very hard to take that forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) talked about marine science, on which she is of course an expert.

Mike Gapes: I am raising the very important question of the future of King George hospital, Ilford. Ilford has had a maternity hospital since 1926 and has had a district general hospital since King George V opened it in 1931. I want to place on record my strong support for the record investment in the national health service under this Labour Government and for the modernisation that they have carried out, including the new polyclinic in Loxford in my constituency. I was pleased to meet the first patient of that polyclinic in June.
	I also believe that as technology changes, it is important that we have more community-based facilities and services. Unfortunately we should not allow those people who run the bureaucracy of the NHS, and even those who believe they know what is best for our communities, to make decisions that have an intense impact on many poor people in the poorest communities of our country.
	Three years ago, the NHS bureaucracy came up with the misnamed "Fit for the Future" proposals, which would have led to the closure of the accident and emergency and the elective facilities at King George hospital, Ilford. A vigorous local campaign was mounted. I myself organised a petition and we presented 28,000 signatures. The local paper, the  Ilford Recorder, organised its own petition. Other local MPs supported us in that campaign. In 2007, Professor George Alberti produced a report in which he said that the proposals were "clinically unsound" and that those concerned had to go back to the drawing board. He also said that King George hospital should be developed as a first-class local hospital. It took them a long time; there was then a review of health services in London. Eventually, the NHS bureaucracy decided to go ahead with another attempt. I am afraid that because of arrogance and the "we know best" approach the people behind this-whether they are on the clinical bodies or are the "joint responsible owners", to use the jargon-have come up with proposals that do not take account of community needs.
	At the time, I asked the chief executive of Redbridge primary care trust, Heather O'Meara, to give me an assurance that the "Fit for the Future" proposals were dead-that they were not going to be revived in some other form. I was simply told that they had been stood down. It seems that they have now been reactivated under another guise. It is true that this time we are to keep elective operations at the King George site, but at the price of losing all our maternity services as well as our accident and emergency functions. At Upton Park this afternoon-as a West Ham United season-ticket holder I am very disappointed that this venue was chosen-a joint committee of inner north-east London and outer north-east London primary care trusts has been meeting to rubber-stamp proposals to go ahead with a public consultation starting on 30 November and running for 14 weeks until 8 March 2010. I understand, however, that for some reason no decision will be taken until after the general election. If this is so urgent, we might wonder why they do not make the decision straight away, or why they do not defer the whole thing until after the general election, but this is how NHS bureaucracy seems to work. It is planning to have a consultation, which in my opinion will be about as free and fair as a rigged Afghan election. It is clear that they have not listened to what the community said three years ago. It is now again going ahead with proposals that will significantly downgrade services for people living in Ilford, and that will mean that each year several thousand women who are due to give birth will have to go to Romford. Children will not be born in Ilford any longer, unless they are born at home or in the back of taxis or cars driving them to other hospitals; they will be born in Romford and elsewhere in London.
	It is said that this proposal is clinically led, but it is admitted in the small print of the documents that the engagement exercise builds on previous exercises including "Fit for the Future". It is therefore clear that "Fit for the Future", which was rejected because it was financially driven and not clinically sound, is part of the basis of the decisions that are going forward.
	This is a hidden agenda to save money, dressed up as a clinical exercise. We have big financial deficits in north-east London. The Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust has serious management and financial problems. I would argue that most of those problems relate to the expensive private finance initiative Queen's hospital, which has been open for three years. My constituents in Ilford are therefore being made to suffer as a result of problems from the other hospital in the trust.
	The documents also says that the proposals are based on "Healthcare for London", which Professor Lord Ara Darzi produced. He talked about a local hospital serving a population of between 200,000 and 250,000 people. Under these proposals, neither Barking and Dagenham, with a population of 182,000, nor Redbridge, with a population of 264,000, will have a local hospital. All other boroughs in east and north-east London have a hospital, but we will no longer have a hospital serving our populations. This is a disgrace. We could lose up to 488 beds at King George hospital, and the consequences would be very serious in terms of added pressure on other hospitals in the region.
	I believe that this is financially driven, but interestingly the small print of these documents talks about the proposals saving £19 million a year and a modelling exercise showing that if the accident and emergency facilities at Newham general hospital were closed instead of those at the King George hospital, £27 million a year would be saved. For some reason, the bureaucrats have chosen not to go down that route and that confirms the preconception of the "Fit for the Future" option 4, which was to downgrade King George hospital; even though the financial figures give a different result, they are still going ahead on that basis.
	Serious financial deficits are predicted. The deficit for outer north-east London is predicted to be £140 million by 2016-17, whereas the one for inner north-east London is predicted to be £150 million. It is estimated that even with what are described as "aggressive savings", the total deficit for all the trusts and all the health economy will be £140 million, as opposed to £290 million. That is a serious amount of money, but of course there will be some income. If a major acute hospital can be run down, people can sell off a lot of land. There is a lot of land on the King George hospital site that would, undoubtedly be prime for housing development, thus adding to the population of Ilford and to the number of young mothers who would have to go to Romford to give birth to their children.
	We face a serious problem as a result of these proposals. Members of Parliament have been kept out of the loop on this discussion. The first time I saw any documentation given to me by the primary care trust was when I received an e-mail about 10 days ago supplying me with a document dated February 2009. I saw the documentation that was going to today's meeting only on Friday by e-mail and yesterday in hard copy. It seems that because the elected representatives played such an effective role in stopping the proposals three years ago, we have been deliberately kept out of the process so that we cannot stop the consultation before it starts this time.
	I wish to say something about the consultation, because it is based on a certain amount of information being put forward about issues such as travel patterns, how many miles people will have to travel and so on. Interestingly, the bureaucrats are supposed to have produced something called an "integrated impact assessment", which should take account of the impact on ethnic minorities and women, on the carbon footprint and on other matters. Page 23 of their documents admits:
	"The scope of work of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) includes further work on the impact of any changes to distances and travel times. This work will take place during consultation and will be made available via the Health for North East London website".
	So they are starting a consultation at the end of November and then halfway through the process they start producing more information for the consultation. Surely, the consultation cannot be started until all the information necessary to make it accurate has been provided. This is a bit like changing the party affiliation or the candidates halfway through an election campaign, once the nomination papers are in. This is absurd, but it is typical of the determination of certain people in the London region NHS to go ahead regardless. They want to push this through and to present a fait accompli before the general election but not make the decision until after it.

Mike Gapes: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not be happy if I suggested that they closed the accident and emergency at Whipps Cross and turned Whipps Cross into a 24/7 urgent care centre. We need urgent care centres, state-of-the- art polyclinics and all kinds of other facilities, but we also need people in Ilford to have access to accident and emergency and maternity services in Ilford, rather than their having to go to other parts of north-east London.
	There are clear grounds for throwing out the consultation process before it is launched and I hope that the Minister is listening carefully to what I am saying. The clinical reference group behind the proposals said that there was a "preferred" location of having obstetric maternity on the same site as accident and emergency. When I met the officials behind the plan last Friday, I asked medical director Mike Gill whether it was absolutely necessary to have an A and E on the same site as an obstetric maternity facility. He said that it was not, and that the closure of the maternity services was not due to the closure of the A and E. The midwifery director, Carol Drummond, took a slightly different view. She was arguing that it should all be on one site together. The documents that they produced admit that
	"obstetrics can be provided with no A&E."
	That is in the documentation.
	If there is a need to have the maternity facilities consolidated in one place, perhaps the King George hospital could be a good site for them-or for most of them, given that about 4,000 children are born at the site each year. The maternity issue raises a serious concern for me, because my constituency has the youngest population in Redbridge, as well as the highest number of births, people from ethnic minorities, people for whom English is not a first language and complicated births because of deprivation, poor housing or genetic factors.
	I am concerned about my constituents, who also have less access to cars than those in other parts of outer north-east London. Barking and Dagenham is in a slightly worse position than some of the wards in my constituency, but I have constituency wards where 38 or 40 per cent. of households do not have access to a car. In the wards near Queen's hospital, 10, 15 or 20 per cent. do not have access to a car. The proposal will move the facilities away from the area with the poorest people in the poorest areas, with less access to transport. People will be made to rely on two buses and a train to get to the Queen's hospital in Romford. That is unacceptable. A poor migrant woman from Ilford, South, without access to a car, does not wish to go several miles to a strange environment elsewhere. Those responsible for the plans say that they will encourage home births and that they will encourage the establishment of a birthing centre, but we need a maternity hospital in Ilford.
	I also want to say something about the quality of the maternity care. I have a constituent, Mr. Ali Hai. He and his wife had their second child just a few weeks ago. His wife was going to give birth in Queen's hospital but, as he stated in an e-mail:
	"I asked the Director responsible for Maternity Care...to be switched to KGH"-
	that is, King George hospital-
	"because of the state of chaos and the ridiculously long waiting times at Queens".
	They waited several hours. He stated that those waits were
	"totally unacceptable given that it is responsible for dealing with High Risk Maternity cases."
	He went on:
	"Had KGH not been there I hate to think of the consequences. Needless to say the attention, care and organisation at KGH was outstanding."
	That is the question-will my constituents get outstanding care in future if our local maternity facilities are closed and our local accident and emergency department is taken away? I do not think so.
	I have one final point to make. All the data treat Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust as though it were one place, but the trust has two hospitals and it is very difficult to get disaggregated information. The documents that are about to be published should not be published until the information in them has been disaggregated in all respects.
	When proposals are made for changes that would affect one of the hospitals in a joint trust, every part of the relevant documents should have a clear breakdown of the data so that people can see what all the costs are. The information should show where the deficits and complaints come from, and where the quality variations are. It may be claimed that the data are not available, but lots of money has been spent on Mott MacDonald's scoping exercise on the assessments, and on consultants. If some money could be spent on getting the information that I have described together, it is possible that a proper consultation could be held.
	My local authority in Redbridge is a hung council with a Conservative administration, but Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors are all together in being strongly opposed to the proposals. If the local health overview and scrutiny committee were to request a reference to the NHS reconfiguration panel, could that reference be implemented speedily, so that we can stop the consultation exercise? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to answer that. Apart from anything else, stopping the exercise would mean that I would not have to spend the whole of my Christmas collecting another 28,000 signatures to defend my local hospital.